The effects of nutrient variation and age on the resistance of three winter-dormant white birch species to mammalian herbivores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we investigated variation in the resistance of winter-dormant white birch species (Betula resinifera Britt., Betula pendula Roth, and Betula platyphylla Sukatchev var. japonica Hara) at different ontogenetic phases to mountain hares (Lepus timidus L.) and field voles (Microtus agrestis L.). The birches were grown for 4 years in outdoor pots and in a field experiment at different nutrient levels. The species differed in their overall levels of resistance to mountain hares and in their resistance responses at different nutrient levels. The exotic species, B. resinifera and B. platyphylla, were more resistant than the native B. pendula. Variation in resistance to voles between and within species at different fertilizer levels was less pronounced. The resistance response of white birches to hares seems to be related to their ontogeny, as well as to the nutrient status of the soil. At high nutrient supply, young birch seedlings achieve good growth and high resistance, with no tradeoff between growth and resistance, but the effect of fertilization on resistance stabilizes in aging trees. Before we can arrive at any general conclusions about the resistance responses of trees in variable environmental conditions, the effect of ontogeny must be considered, as well as differences between plant genotypes.
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 | 0.000 | 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".