MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6903396120 · doi:10.1051/forest:2004079/pdf

Picea glauca dynamics and spatial pattern of seedlings regeneration along a chronosequence in the mixedwood section of the boreal forest

2004· article· en· W6903396120 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronosequenceSeedbedCanopyTaigaSeedlingBorealRegeneration (biology)Basal areaStand developmentSilviculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied Picea glauca dynamics in the boreal forest of Saskatchewan, Canada, using 35 stands ranging from < 1 to > 200 y after fire. We determined the spatial pattern and the importance of seedbed conditions to the recruitment of P. glauca. Basal area increased along the chronosequence peaking at 110 y after fire (51.5 m2 ha–1). The ratio of softwood to hardwood increased from 0.03 (16 y) to 17.0 (172 y). Picea glauca tree density increased with stand age, highest densities were observed in a 172 y stand (1413 stems ha–1). Picea glauca dominated the canopy between 93 and 172 y after fire. Picea glauca snags appeared about 66 y after fire, and remained relatively low in density until 160 y. Saplings were present at varying densities along the chronosequence. Seedlings established immediately after fire and exhibited bimodality with lowest densities observed between 110 and 125 y. Analysis with Ripley’s K, showed that seedlings were mainly distributed at random in young stands but were clumped at a distances < 12 m in old stands. In young stands, the majority of seedlings regenerated on the organic layer (LFH 73%), while recruitment was almost exclusively on logs in old stands (94%). Picea glauca regeneration depended on propagule availability and seedbed characteristics at early stand age. Logs and the resultant canopy gaps formed, appear to be critical for P. glauca regeneration in mature and old stands.

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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)Same topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207