Effects of suppression and release on sapling growth for 11 tree species of northern, interior British
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Saplings of canopy tree species frequently undergo alternating periods of suppression and release before reaching canopy size. In this study, we document the effects of periods of suppression and release on current responses to variation in light by saplings of the 11 major tree species of northwestern, interior British Columbia. We were spe-cifically interested in the degree to which increasing length of suppression had long-term effects on subsequent re-sponse to release in gaps or following partial cutting, and the degree to which the effects of suppression were ameliorated with time following release. At least some saplings of all 11 species had undergone alternating periods of suppression and release. The most shade-tolerant species generally did not show either a decline in growth over time during suppression or a gradual increase in growth at a given light level over time during release. The least shade-tolerant species exhibited significant declines in growth rate during suppression; however, in all of the species except trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.), the effects of suppression disappeared over time during release. Failure to account for the effects of past suppression and release leads to significant overestimates of the initial responses of shade-intolerant species to release. Our results suggest that competitive balances between species shift substantially over time as a result of growth history and that these shifts have significant effects on successional patterns. Résumé: Les gaules des essences qui forment le couvert subissent fréquemment une alternance de périodes de sup-pression et de dégagement avant d’atteindre leur dimension finale. Dans cette étude, nous avons observé les effets de périodes de suppression et de dégagement sur la réaction courante à une variation de la lumière chez les gaules des 11 principales espèces d’arbres du nord-ouest de la zone intérieure de la Colombie-Britannique. Nous étions plus particulièrement intéressés à déterminer dans quelle mesure l’augmentation de la durée de la période de suppression a
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".