MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313125055 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2013-0052

Incidence and spread of Heterobasidion root rot in uneven-aged Norway spruce stands

2013· article· en· W2313125055 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tuula Piri, Sauli Valkonen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPicea abiesBiologyRoot rotThinningForestryBotanyAgronomyHorticultureEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Notwithstanding Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) is highly prone to root rot caused by Heterobasidion parviporum Niemelä & Korhonen, but little is known about the epidemiology of Heterobasidion root rot in spruce stands applied to uneven-aged management. To get insight into the development of Heterobasidion infections in this type of forest, the size and spatial distribution of individual genets of H. parviporum were determined in five uneven-aged managed Norway spruce stands in southern Finland. In these stands, all tree size classes (regeneration, intermediate, and overstory trees) were infected by H. parviporum. The average number of trees and stumps infected by a single genet ranged from 3 to 6.3 (mean 4.4) among study plots. All Heterobasidion genets identified from overstory trees or stumps had spread to the younger tree generation. Secondary infection from overstory trees was the main way of infection (at least 85% of all infections) among the regeneration and intermediate trees. The results indicate that uneven-aged management strategies that maintain continuous spruce regeneration favour the secondary spread of H. parviporum between different tree size classes and may compromise the production of high-quality timber over successive generations.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations38
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207