Radial Growth of Oak and Aspen Near a Coal-Fired Station, Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eighteen stands of bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa Michx.) and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) were sampled and analyzed using dendrochronological methods to study the potential effects on tree growth of emissions from a 132 MW coal-fired generating station. Sixteen stands were sampled within a 16-km radius of the station, and two control stands were sampled outside of the range of influence, at distances > 40 km. All stands showed similar radial growth patterns from 1960–2001, regardless of distance from or direction relative to the generating station, and a number of stands, including the controls, had below average growth after 1970. Both species were significantly affected by climatic factors, showing decreased radial growth with increasing June temperature. The species differed in their growth responses to spring precipitation and temperature in the previous October. One bur oak site displayed marked radial growth decline beginning in the mid-1970s, strongly pronounced following 1977. This decline does not appear to be related to emissions from the station, but is suspected to be a result of poor site conditions (shallow soil developed over calcareous till), confounded by a change in drainage (a road was built adjacent to the stand in 1977, perpendicular to the direction of drainage). The below average growth seen in 1970–2001 across most stands is likely attributable to stand dynamics and age effects.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".