MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400803641 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2024-0031

Do nurse plants and cattle exclusion help restore Parlatore's Podocarp forest?

2024· article· en· W4400803641 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matías Joel Castellón, Andrés Tálamo, Flávia Mazzini, E. B. Medina, Griet An Erica Cuyckens

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Neotropical cloud forests of northwest Argentina, cattle ranching has been historically the primary economic activity, with potential negative impacts on the ecosystem. Understanding factors influencing tree regeneration is crucial for reforestation efforts in grazed areas. Given the limited understanding of Parlatore's Podocarp ( Podocarpus parlatorei Pilg.) regeneration ecology, a unique gymnosperm species in the Southern Yungas' Montane Forest, we evaluated the growth and survival of its saplings for 1 year after planting them both inside and outside an exclosure, and in association with or without unpalatable nurse plants. Inside the exclosure, sapling survival was 100%, regardless of nurse plants. However, outside the exclosure saplings associated with nurse plants had 19.5 times higher survival probability. Growth rates were higher inside the exclosure and for saplings associated with nurse plants. The positive effect of nurse plants on growth was similar inside and outside the exclosure. Cattle browsing and trampling on Parlatore's Podocarp were observed for the first time, highlighting a previously undocumented threat to the species. Our findings offer valuable insights for ecological restoration, potentially suggesting strategic sapling planting near unpalatable plants and considering cattle exclusion in key areas to enhance long-term restoration success in the Southern Yungas' Montane Forest.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207