Canopy openness and leaf area in chronosequences of coastal temperate rainforests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined spatial and temporal differences in canopy openness and effective leaf area (Le) in a series of eight forest chronosequences located on southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Structural attributes were measured on the west and east side of the island in immature, mature, and old-growth stands using hemispherical photography and the LAI-2000 plant canopy analyzer (PCA). Old-growth forest canopies were distinct from those of younger stands: they were more open, more heterogeneous in their openness, and maintained a lower stand Le. Although the overall developmental trajectories of forests were similar across the study sites, site-to-site differences in the rate and magnitude of these temporal changes indicated that site-specific factors also play a significant role in determining the character of forest canopies and their development. The most significant changes in canopy structure did not emerge until the later stages of stand development (150-200 years). Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) dominated east-side forests were, on average, more open, more heterogeneous, and had a lower stand Le than the stands dominated by western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn.) forming the west-side chronosequences. Shoot clumping, along with other evidence, suggested that species-related differences in leaf display and the geometry of branching structure might have contributed significantly to these regional patterns.
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 | 0.000 | 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".