The effects of dwarf mistletoe, witches' brooms, stand structure, and site characteristics on the crown architecture of lodgepole pine in Oregon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the importance of lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium americanum Nutt.) in determining the height to crown top (HCT), height to crown base (HCB), and live crown ratio (LCR) of 2025 lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. murrayana (Grev. & Balf.) Engelm.) growing over a 24-km2 study site in central Oregon. We compared the effects of infection and associated witches' brooms with those of site topography, soil type, shrub cover, stand density, and the abundance of mature ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex P. Laws. & C. Laws). using multiple regression and path analysis. The density of dominant-size P. contorta was consistently the most important factor influencing HCT, HCB, and LCR across the study site. In dense stands, trees tended to have elevated crown bases due to self-pruning and, hence, lower values of LCR. Dwarf mistletoe and related witches' brooms uniquely explained 6.9% of the variance in LCR, which was close to that of dominant P. contorta (7.1%) and more than that of soil type (3.0%), but explained only 2.6% of the variance in HCB, which was less than that of dominant P. contorta (6.5%) and soil type (4.6%). Regression models suggest that heavily infected trees should be 18% shorter and have crown bases 37% lower than uninfected trees, while moderately infected trees should have an LCR over 20% larger than that of uninfected and heavily infected trees. We also found that the largest 25 heavily infected trees sampled were approximately 19% shorter and 1113% smaller in diameter than the largest 25 uninfected trees. The results suggest that dwarf mistletoe can be an important factor in determining the crown dimensions of P. contorta but that these effects may be interpreted only in the context of site characteristics and stand structure.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".