Demography and pollination ecology of «Trillium grandiflorum» in hedgerow corridors and forest patches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hedgerows are assumed to provide suitable habitats and dispersal corridors in agricultural landscapes for forest herbs, but these functions have rarely been tested. Assuming that hedgerows can sustain viable populations solely from vegetation survey can be misleading since it does not take into account extinction lag and demographic processes. I address the question of hedgerow's suitability for forest herbs by comparing the demography and pollination biology of Trillium grandiflorum in hedgerow corridors and forest patches of an agricultural landscape. Specifically I ask: Do population structure and individual performance of T. grandiflorum differ between hedgerows and forests? Are pollination services comparable in hedgerows and forests? How do variations in growth, survival, and reproduction influence demography in hedgerows and forests? Individual plant performance and population structure was determined from field observations and experiments conducted in a system of hedgerows connected to forests. I conducted pollination and transplantation experiments to test for variation in pollination and reproduction among habitats and with increasing isolation. Populations monitored for three years in hedgerows and forests were used to construct transition matrix models and to compare their dynamics. Populations in hedgerows were characterized by lower proportion of seedling and juvenile per mature plant, but also by better flower and ovule production than in forests. Pollen limitation was comparable between habitats, suggesting that pollination services in hedgerows are at least as good as in forests. Pollination varied at the landscape scale and over time, and declined wi
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".