Viewing forests from below: fine root mass declines relative to leaf area in aging lodgepole pine stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the continued quest to explain the decline in productivity and vigor with aging forest stands, the most poorly studied area relates to root system change in time. This paper measures the wood production, root and leaf area (and mass) in a chronosequence of fire-origin lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Loudon) stands consisting of four age classes (12, 21, 53, and ≥100 years), each replicated ~ five times. Wood productivity was greatest in the 53-year-old stands and then declined in the ≥100-year-old stands. Growth efficiency, the quantity of wood produced per unit leaf mass, steadily declined with age. Leaf mass and fine root mass plateaued between the 53- and ≥100-year-old stands, but leaf area index actually increased in the older stands. An increase in the leaf area index:fine root area ratio supports the idea that older stand are potentially limited by soil resources. Other factors contributing to slower growth in older stands might be lower soil temperatures and increased self-shading due to the clumped nature of crowns. Collectively, the proportionally greater reduction in fine roots in older stands might be the variable that predisposes these forests to be at a potentially greater risk of stress-induced mortality.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".