Relationships between root form and growth, stability, and mortality in planted versus naturally regenerated lodgepole pine in north-central British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The roots of container-grown and manually planted lodgepole pine, Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm., are often deformed, potentially impacting their health relative to that of naturally regenerated trees. We evaluated 12 root characteristics to elucidate the type and severity of root deformities in planted pine aged 3–10 years, as well as to determine the impact of root form on their growth and stability. Results showed that root deformity is widespread: 95.0% of planted trees versus 50.9% of naturally regenerated trees had either moderate or severe root deformities. A logistic regression using the 12 root characteristics strongly distinguished between planted and naturally regenerated trees. Aboveground growth form was affected in that planted trees had a lower height-to-diameter ratio than naturally regenerated trees. In young planted trees with low or moderate root deformities, but not in trees with severely deformed roots (65.0% of all planted trees in our study), both height- and diameter-growth rates were higher than in naturally regenerated trees. Growth differences may be attributed to differential resource allocation resulting from translocation inhibition caused by root deformation. In spite of very different root systems, there was no difference in the horizontal stability of planted versus naturally regenerated trees. However, planted trees have a significantly lower root cross-sectional area and may therefore be at a higher risk of mortality, primarily from attack by the Warren root collar weevil, Hylobius warreni Wood.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".