Hard pine stem rusts on lodgepole pine at a site-preparation study in sub-boreal British Columbia: effects over 24 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Site preparation can improve lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia Engelm. ex S. Watson) survival and growth; however, we lack information regarding possible interactions between treatment effects and the impacts of western gall rust (Endocronartium harknessii (J.P. Moore) Y. Hirats.) and comandra blister rust (Cronartium comandrae Peck). Mechanical and burning techniques examined over 24 years at a sub-boreal British Columbia site did not significantly increase rust infection rates or characteristics relative to an untreated control. Most infection occurred before age 10 years and at heights <2 m. By age 24 years, 22% and 10% of pine had sustained at least one western gall rust or comandra blister rust stem infection, respectively, but only 4% of western gall rust infected trees were dead, compared with 60% of comandra blister rust infected trees. Exploratory regression analysis of the relationship between tree volume and percent stem encirclement and infection height suggested that volume of 24-year-old pine infected with western gall rust averaged 8% less than the corresponding volume of uninfected trees. Over 24 years, estimated stand-level, rust-related volume loss was 8.4%, with the majority due to mortality from comandra blister rust. One-fifth of estimated volume loss was provisionally attributed to growth reductions among live western gall rust infected pine.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".