Impact of one year crozier removal on long-term frond production in <i>Matteuccia struthiopteris</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Matteuccia struthiopteris (L.) Todaro populations that had been subjected to crozier harvesting over the past 25 yr were investigated. The number of crowns harvested and the number of croziers harvested per crown varied annually, but most crowns were harvested at least once over 5 yr. In 1995, total and 50% defoliation impacts were tested on subsequent years’ frond production in understorey and open site populations. The effect of mineral fertilization on the understorey population was also investigated. Crowns in the open habitat produced more fronds annually than the understorey crowns and were less susceptible to partial defoliation. One year with total defoliation was sufficient to significantly reduce the number of fronds produced in both habitats over the next 4 yr. Defoliated crowns also accumulated less carbohydrates at the end of the first season. Mineral fertilization increased the number of fronds produced the following year but had no long-term benefit and did not significantly alleviate defoliation effects. Despite the fact that harvesting intensity was relatively low, it appears necessary to limit crozier harvesting per crown to less than 50% in understorey populations to preserve wild populations of M. struthiopteris. Key words: Defoliation, carbohydrate reserves, fertilization, fiddlehead, Matteuccia struthiopteris
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".