The association of two invasive shrubs, common buckthorn (<i>Rhamnus cathartica</i>) and Tartarian honeysuckle (<i>Lonicera tatarica</i>), with oak communities in the midwestern United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oak forests throughout North America are declining due to changes in disturbance regimes that have led to increased competition from other tree and shrub species. We evaluated associations between oak regeneration, the occurrence of two common invasive shrubs (common buckthorn ( Rhamnus cathartica L.) and Tartarian honeysuckle ( Lonicera tatarica L.)), and forest edges in oak forests in a portion of the midwestern United States where bur ( Quercus macrocarpa Michx.), red ( Quercus rubra L.), and white oak ( Quercus alba L.) were historically dominant. We found poor recruitment of oaks in comparison to other, more shade-tolerant tree species. Results further revealed a strong stand-scale association between bur oak, open canopy conditions, high soil nutrient levels, and the presence of common buckthorn and Tartarian honeysuckle; these same site characteristics were disassociated with red and white oak. Within red and white oak stands, however, the presence of the invasive shrubs was more pronounced near forest edges. While oak recruitment is hampered throughout stands, our research suggests that predominant constraints may vary based on soil and light gradients found along forest edges.
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 | 0.001 | 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".