MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152105716 · doi:10.1139/x08-084

Pathogen attack and spatial patterns of juvenile mortality and growth in a temperate tree, <i>Prunus grayana</i>

2008· article· en· W2152105716 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kenji Seiwa, Yoshiko Miwa, Norio Sahashi, Hiroshi Kanno, Mizuki Tomita, Naoto Ueno, Miki Yamazaki

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd
KeywordsBiologyTemperate climateBeechPrunusJuvenilePathogenTemperate forestRosaceaeTemperate rainforestBotanyHorticultureEcologyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To examine whether the Janzen–Connell hypothesis is valid in temperate forests, we investigated the density, growth, mortality, and agents of mortality of seedlings and the density, size, and age of saplings of Prunus grayana Maxim. at three distances (0–3, 6–10, and 16–26 m) from conspecific adults in a temperate forest in Japan. An inoculation experiment was also conducted to test the host range of a leaf pathogen. The probability of mortality was highest at 0–3 m during the first 2 years of growth. Mortality mainly resulted from distance-dependent attack by two types of pathogen that caused damping-off epidemics and spot symptoms on leaves. The leaf pathogen was identified as Phaeoisariopsis pruni-grayanae Sawada, which infected many more seedlings of Prunus grayana than of the two other tree species tested in an inoculation experiment. The vertical and diameter growth was lowest at 0–3 m and highest at 16–26 m in both seedlings and saplings. As a result, the greatest number of large and older saplings was observed at 16–26 m. Our results demonstrate that the Janzen–Connell mechanism operates in a beech-dominated forest in the temperate region of Japan.

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)0.000
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 score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations58
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207