MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407732969 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2024-0291

Early snowmelt accelerates bud break but has mixed effects on leaf area of understory woody plants in a heavily snow-covered deciduous forest in northern Japan

2025· article· en· W4407732969 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mayu Kunishima, Kenichi Yoshimura

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeciduousUnderstorySnowmeltSnowWoody plantForestrySubarctic climateAnnual growth cycle of grapevinesEnvironmental scienceBotanyBiologyEcologyGeographyCanopyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change induces earlier snowmelt in most regions and extends growing seasons for woody plants. However, there is still limited understanding of how the relative impacts and interactions of light, temperature, and water conditions altered by early snowmelt affect phenological and morphological traits of understory plants. We conducted snow removal experiments in a heavily snow-covered forest. We compared bud break dates and leaf size developments with the effects of snow removal in understory Fagus crenata, Lindera umbellata, and Viburnum furcatum. Snow removal increased temperature and light conditions around buds but decreased the soil moisture during bud break. Removing snow 1 month before ambient snowmelt accelerated bud break but only by 5.9–11.9 days. Bud break in individuals with snow removal required more thawing degree days around buds than under ambient conditions. Leaf areas of V. furcatum in the snow removal were smaller than those in controls. Summarizing changes in light conditions and leaf area growth, the earlier bud break, and leaf growth did not result in greater light capture potential over the spring period in L. umbellata and V. furcatum. Although earlier snowmelt accelerates bud break and leaf expansion in these plants, this may not result in greater carbon accumulation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207