MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411012330 · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2025.122864

Eastern white pine and red pine forest regeneration following secondary disturbance

2025· article· en· W4411012330 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mélanie Gilles-Nicoletti, Yves Bergeron, Nicole J. Fenton, Tadeusz B. Splawinski, Pascale Bélanger-Lavallée

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Ecology and Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaNova Scotia Department of AgricultureUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
FundersNatural Resources CanadaMitacsOntario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
KeywordsDisturbance (geology)Regeneration (biology)Red pinePine forestForest regenerationForestryWoody plantEcologyWhite (mutation)Natural regenerationAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiologyPinus <genus>Botany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eastern white ( Pinus strobus Lin.) and red pine ( Pinus resinosa Ait.) forests of North America were historically shaped by low to moderate intensity surface fires that created favorable pine regeneration microhabitats. Following European colonization, pine forest area and volume were reduced due to fire suppression, intensive logging, and changing climatic conditions. Ecosystem-based forest management aims to apply sustainable practices inspired by natural disturbances. This study evaluates the ability of shelterwood harvest to emulate surface fires to stimulate pine regeneration. We sampled plots in Témiscamingue (Quebec) and Nipissing (Ontario) that experienced surface fire, shelterwood harvest, or no recent disturbance. We compared disturbance impacts on pine regeneration density and environmental factors influencing regeneration, including canopy and understory vegetation cover, germination substrate cover, and soil characteristics. Fire significantly enhanced pine regeneration compared to shelterwood harvest. Average canopy opening was similar, but shelterwood harvest created canopy heterogeneity. Post-fire white pine regeneration density responded to a threshold of canopy opening heterogeneously reached in shelterwood harvest. In contrast to shelterwood harvest, fire created burnt duff, an effective germination substrate, significantly decreased organic forest floor thickness, and increased pH and nitrogen availability. Similar trends in the effects of both disturbances on canopy and understory vegetation did not result in similar pine regeneration densities, but variations in germination substrates and soil chemistry explained the differences observed. Our findings emphasize the importance of the chemical effects of fire. We recommend combining shelterwood harvest with site preparation techniques that emulate surface fire effects, such as prescribed burning or soil amendments. • Shelterwood harvest alone cannot ensure an abundant regeneration of white and red pines like surface fire. • The chemical effect of surface fire at the seed microhabitat scale is key for abundant regeneration of white and red pines. • Burnt duff is the preferable germination substrate for white and red pine seedlings. • Lower soil acidity and carbon-nitrogen ratio after fire favored seedling density more than nitrogen stocks after harvest. • Surface fire improves red pine regeneration, but this species has different additional needs than white pine.

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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest Ecology and ManagementSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207