Performance of jack pine (<i>Pinus banksiana</i>) rooted cuttings from proliferated dwarf shoots versus seedlings 8 years after planting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growth and tree form characteristics of jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) rooted cuttings propagated from proliferated dwarf shoots (PDS) were compared with seedlings in two field trials 8 years after establishment. Results indicated that jack pine rooted cuttings from PDS can grow as well as seedlings and maintain acceptable tree form. Rooted cuttings of progeny from the 22 top-ranking open-pollinated families in a seedling seed orchard of jack pine were 4.2% taller and 10% larger in diameter at breast height than commercial seedlings tested on the same sites, which indicates that rooted cuttings have potential in realizing genetic gains in jack pine tree improvement programs. Rooted cuttings increased the proportion of trees with normal branching characteristics and reduced the percentage of trees with excessive heavy branches in the Sault St. Marie trial, which had larger tree sizes. However, longer term monitoring (20 to 25 years) is needed to determine stability of jack pine rooted cuttings planted on sandy soil where wind throw may become a problem as tree size increases.
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".