Root biomass of regenerating aspen (<i>Populus tremuloides</i>) stands of different densities in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In north-central Alberta, 12 plots (9 m 2 ) were hydraulically excavated in young trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) stands (510 years old) of different sucker density to quantify the effects of sucker density on the parental root system, on the formation of new roots and on the growth of suckers. All roots were collected and divided into live and dead parental roots and new root categories. Size and age of parent roots at the time of suckering were determined. Total biomass ranged from 1 to 18 t/ha of live roots. Living root biomass was proportional to stand density and leaf area index (LAI). Low-density stands had a higher proportion of dead roots. Suckers in plots with more parental root biomass/sucker had greater height growth. Root/shoot ratios ranged from 0.46 to 3.52 but were not correlated with stand densities. Stands with larger basal area of suckers and greater mean parent root diameter produced more biomass of new roots. This research suggests that young sucker-origin aspen stands support a large underground biomass and that high sucker densities and LAI are required to prevent loss of parental root biomass.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".