Root system response of naturally regenerated Douglas-fir (<i>Pseudotsuga menziesii</i>) after complete overstory removal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long regeneration periods, which result in two-layered or multilayered forest stands, are an important element of the close-to-nature forest management paradigm in central Europe. Such extended regeneration periods, however, may lead to undesirable development of advance regeneration, specifically in species such as Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) where root growth is strongly curtailed under competition. We hypothesized that root systems of naturally regenerated Douglas-fir that had grown under closed canopy for prolonged periods would be inhibited in their capacity to develop adequate structural root systems following release through removal of the canopy. Complete root systems of six approximately 25-year-old Douglas-fir that had grown for at least 12 years underneath a closed canopy before overstory removal were excavated using subterranean explosives. Root elongation, radial increment of primary lateral and vertical roots, and aboveground stem growth were investigated using retrospective analysis of growth rings. Structural roots of the previously suppressed Douglas-fir were capable of strongly responding to release from competition relative to growth prior to removal, but this response, particularly in the form of root elongation, was delayed. However, since the growth response of roots was not stronger than that above ground, an imbalanced root to shoot ratio, likely developed in trees when grown under the canopy, was not reverted. Generalizing interpretation of the derived findings of this study is limited because of the small sample size and the lack of freely grown control trees. Whether or not previously suppressed trees can develop the same physical stability as open-grown individuals therefore deserves further investigation.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".