Selective feeding of pine voles on roots of tree seedlings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have implicated numerous physical and biotic factors as contributing to the failure of oak to regenerate successfully throughout substantial portions of eastern North America. Recent field evidence in southern Indiana implicated belowground herbivory by pine voles ( Microtus pinetorum (LeConte, 1830)) as a potentially important but overlooked mortality agent for oak seedlings. We used cafeteria-style feeding trials to determine whether selection of hardwood seedlings by captive pine voles differed according to species or age. White oak ( Quercus alba L.) was selected more frequently and experienced a greater proportion of root removal by pine voles than same-age seedlings of the other four species tested. Yellow poplar ( Liriodendron tulipifera L.) was never eaten. White oak seedlings 3 and 6 weeks of age suffered proportionately greater root removal than conspecific seedlings 12 and 15 weeks of age; pine voles removed roughly constant levels of root biomass irrespective of seedling age. Our results confirm that pine voles selectively feed on oak seedlings. In areas where pine voles are abundant, belowground herbivory could limit regeneration of oak by reducing seedling growth and survival. The importance of pine voles as factors influencing the success of oak regeneration warrants closer scrutiny in future field studies.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".