Age, stand density, and tree size as factors in root and basal grafting of lodgepole pine
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
This study investigated stand factors associated with the rate of root graft formation in lodgepole pine stands. Forty plot areas, each containing 10 trees, were excavated in pure, even-aged pine stands in western Alberta. Exposed root systems were examined for grafts and various stand measurements were recorded at each plot. Results indicate that the number of grafts per square metre is controlled by plot tree density and tree diameter. Also, the percentage of grafted trees increased with both increasing tree age and decreasing distance between trees. Grafts also appear to form relatively early in stand development; the majority of grafts in the present study had formed by the time roots were 20 years old and 50 mm in diameter. These results suggest that grafting is a common occurrence in lodgepole pine stands where trees are <109 cm apart, which translates to a density of approximately 8500 stems/ha (based on even tree distribution). However, even clumps within relatively low density stands are likely to be grafted from a relatively early stage of development.Key words: Pinus contorta, graft formation, stand dynamics.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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