Seed abundance versus substrate limitation of seedling recruitment in northern temperate forests of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine the influence of (i) the spatial distribution and abundance of parent trees (as seed sources) and (ii) the abundance and favourability of seedbed substrates, on seedling recruitment for the major tree species in northwestern interior cedar-hemlock forests of British Columbia, under four levels of canopy openness (full canopy, partial canopy, large gap, and clearcut). Substrate distribution varied with canopy openness, and substrate favourability was a function of both canopy openness and seedling species. Lack of suitable substrates was the predominant factor limiting seedling density under full canopies. Partial canopy and gap sites provided a broad range of favourable substrates in close proximity to parent trees, resulting in the highest observed seedling densities. There was much higher effective dispersion of seedlings away from parent trees in gaps than in the partially cut stands. Seedling dispersion to clearcut sites was poor with seedlings being tightly restricted to a narrow band along the forest edge. Thus, seedling recruitment in these forests was a reflection of the interaction between the abundance of seed and substrate favourability, and the relative importance of these factors varied significantly with canopy structure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".