MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098138087 · doi:10.1139/x00-057

Factors associated with the decline disease of sugar maple on the Allegheny Plateau

2000· article· en· W2098138087 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen B. Horsley, Robert P. Long, Scott W. Bailey, Richard A. Hallett, Thomas J. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
KeywordsMapleSugarBasal areaAceraceaeYellow birchBiologyHorticultureBotanyEcologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mortality of sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) has reached unusually high levels across northern Pennsylvania since the early to mid-1980s. We evaluated the influence of glaciation, topographic position, foliage chemistry, defoliation history, and stand characteristics (species composition, structure, density) on the health of sugar maple in 43 stands at 19 sites on the northern Allegheny Plateau. Using percent dead sugar maple basal area as the measure of health, we found that all moderately to severely declining stands were on unglaciated summits, shoulders, or upper backslopes. Stands on glaciated sites and unglaciated lower topographic positions were not declining. The most important factors associated with sugar maple health were foliar levels of Mg and Mn and defoliation history. The lowest foliar Mg, highest foliar Mn, and highest number and severity of insect defoliations were associated with unglaciated summits, shoulders, and upper backslopes. Declining stands had less than ~700 mg·kg -1 Mg and two or more moderate to severe defoliations in the past 10 years; both conditions were associated with moderately to severely declining stands. The decline disease of sugar maple seems to result from an interaction between Mg (and perhaps Mn) nutrition and stress caused by defoliation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations236
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207