Frequency of root grafting in naturally and artificially regenerated stands of Pinus banksiana: influence of site characteristics
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
We investigated the frequency of root grafting in naturally and artificially regenerated stands of jack pine ( Pinus banksiana Lamb.) in the western boreal forest of Quebec, Canada. Twelve 30–60 m 2 plots were hydraulically excavated to determine effects of site characteristics on frequency and timing of root grafting. Naturally regenerated stands had grafted tree percentages similar to artificially regenerated stands (21%–71% across plots) but greater numbers of root grafts per tree (naturally regenerated, 0.73 graft·tree –1 ; artificially regenerated, 0.52 graft·tree –1 ). Mean percentages of grafted trees, number of grafts per tree, and the speed of graft formation were greater in sandy soils (61%, 0.71 graft·tree –1 and 2.43 years, respectively) compared with clay soils (44%, 0.54 graft·tree –1 and 2.97 years, respectively). Proximity of trees was a better predictor of root grafting than stand density, despite many root grafts being found with distant trees (>2 m) in artificially regenerated stands. Our results suggested that root grafts form early in stand development. Even if trees are initially separate entities, this relatively high level of root grafting produces stands where trees are extensively interconnected.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it