MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7061884791

Seedfall, seed germination, and initial survival and growth of seedlings of Thuja plicata in southwestern British Columbia

2008· article· en· W7061884791 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Exchange (Washington State University) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Power Generation Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcDonald's Corporation
KeywordsThujaSeedbedTsugaSeedlingCanopyForest floorPredationForest regenerationChamaecyparisWestern Hemlock
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reasons for the relative absence of Thuja plicata regeneration in the old growth Thuja plicata - Tsuga heterophylla forests close to Vancouver, British Columbia, were assessed by measuring seedfall and applying Thuja seeds to small plots. All measurements were replicated in two different sites. The small (0.5 m2) plots were established in 2 canopy cover conditions (clearcut and forest). 3 seedbed conditions (mineral soil, burned forest floor, and undisturbed forest floor), and 2 mammal and bird seed predation conditions (with and without). Each canopy cover, seedbed, and seed predation combination was replicated 15 times in each study site. Large numbers of viable seeds (>200/m2) fell in 1990/91 and again in 1994/95. Seed germination decreased in the order burn > mineral soil > forest floor; forest > clearcut; and without predation > with predation. After 3 growing seasons, of the 100 seeds applied to each plot, an average of only 1-2 seedlings had survived. This number of surviving seedlings decreased in the order - burn > mineral soil > forest floor, and clearcut > forest, but was not influenced by predation. After 3 growing seasons. seedling growth tended to decrease in the order - burn > forest floor > mineral soil; clearcut > forest; and without predation > with predation. It was concluded that the relative lack of regenerating Thuja seedlings in the study area forests was not due to a lack of viable seeds. Although a lack of suitable seedbeds and the presence of the forest canopy reduce the number of seedlings in undisturbed forests, this number should still be substantial. The observed relative lack of regenerating Thuja seedlings must therefore result from other factors which were not considered in the present study

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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

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 studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Exchange (Washington State University)Same topicAdvanced Power Generation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207