MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410219022 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2024-0314

Sugar maple seedling regeneration of a natural cohort across a latitudinal gradient in New Hampshire

2025· article· en· W4410219022 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Natalie L. Cleavitt, Carrie Deegan, Sarah J. Thorne, Ana Suppé, Kimberly L. Colson, Wanda B. Rice

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPlant-Derived Bioactive Compounds
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Environmental Biology
KeywordsMapleSeedlingNatural regenerationSugarForestryAceraceaeYellow birchRegeneration (biology)BiologyBotanyEnvironmental scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sugar maple, an economically and ecologically important tree in the northern hardwood forest, has experienced regeneration failure that in the Northeast portion of the range has been variously attributed to soil acidification and resultant changes in soil chemistry, impacts of climate change, and effects of species composition. In a 5-year study spanning a latitudinal gradient in the state of New Hampshire, we examined evidence for these three hypotheses to explain sugar maple regeneration patterns. Overall, sugar maple seedling survival was highest in the two sites with lower sugar maple abundance. Alternatively, the two other sites with greater than 50% sugar maple relative dominance shared the following outcomes: higher seed production per area, greater foliar pest damage, lower seedling survival, lower sapling density, and higher canopy maple mortality, while the sites with lower dominance of maple had opposite outcomes. Based on field data and a common garden experiment, conspecific impacts on seedling survival were related to foliar pests and fungal pathogens rather than through soil feedbacks. These results lend support to other studies encouraging promotion of stand tree diversity and avoidance of monocultures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 topicPlant-Derived Bioactive CompoundsFrench-language works237,207