Leaf- and plant-level carbon gain in yellow birch, sugar maple, and beech seedlings from contrasting forest litght environments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leaf-level photosynthetic-light response and plant-level daily carbon gain were estimated for seedlings of moderately shade-tolerant yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britton) and shade-tolerant sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) and beech (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.) growing in gaps and under a closed canopy in a sugar maple stand at Duchesnay, Que. All three species had a higher photosynthetic capacity (A(max)) in the gaps than in shade, but yellow birch and beech responded more markedly than sugar maple to the increase in light availability. The high degree of plasticity observed in beech suggests that the prediction that photosynthetic plasticity should decrease with increasing shade tolerance may not hold when comparisons are made among a few late-successional species. Unit-area daily carbon gain (C(A)) was significantly higher in the gaps than in shade for all three species, but no significant difference was observed between light environments for plant-level carbon gain (C(W)). In shade, we found no difference of C(A) and C(W) among species. In gaps, beech had a significantly higher C(A) than sugar maple but similar to that of birch, and birch had a significantly higher C(W) than maple but similar to that of beech. Sugar maple consistently had lower carbon gains than yellow birch and beech but is nevertheless the dominant species at our study site. These results indicate that although plant-level carbon gain is presumably more closely related to growth and survival of a species than leaf-level photosynthesis, it is still many steps removed from the ecological success of a species.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it