MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969753169 · doi:10.1093/wjaf/18.4.267

Spring Versus Summer Spruce Stocktypes of Western Canada: Nursery Development and Field Performance

2003· article· en· W2969753169 on OpenAlex
Steven C. Grossnickle, Raymund S. Folk

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Journal of Applied Forestry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSowingSpring (device)PhenologyGrowing seasonAgronomyShootHorticultureBiologyEnvironmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article summarizes information on the performance of spring versus summer spruce (Picea glauca, Picea engelmannii) stocktypes grown in western Canada. The spring planted stocktype is grown over one growing season in the nursery, hardened in late summer, goes through acclimation in the fall, lifted within a fairly broad window in late fall and early winter when it is considered winter-hardened, and then frozen-stored until planting in the spring This stocktype is planted across a fairly broad spring planting window. In contrast, the summer planted stocktype is grown over one or two growing seasons in the nursery, lifted during late spring to early summer for planting in a narrow planting window in mid summer. These stocktypes are quite different in their phenology during final stages of nursery development, through stock quality assessment and initial performance in the field. For this reason, the discussion centers on comparing important morphological and physiological attributes between these two stocktypes. The stocktype used for spring planting programs has a high level of stress resistance just after planting (i.e., freezing tolerance: index of injury at -6°C of 11%; drought tolerance: osmotic potential at turgor loss point of -2.2 MPa). This stocktype starts to lose this high level of stress resistance as seedlings break bud and undergo shoot development within weeks of being planted on reforestation sites. The stocktype used for summer planting programs has a low level of stress resistance just after budset (i.e., freezing tolerance: index of injury at -6°C of 43%; drought tolerance: osmotic potential at turgor loss point of -1.6 MPa). This stocktype has a rapidly changing phenology resulting in an increasing level of stress resistance and decreasing growth potential (primarily in the root system), whether budset is induced naturally or by a short-day cultural treatment. Thus, timing of lifting plays a critical role in the success of summer stocktypes. The spring-plant stocktype has both shoot and root growth, while the summer-plant stocktype only root growth during the first season on a reforestation site. During the second growing season, both stocktypes have a similar pattern of shoot and root growth across the growing season. West. J. Appl. For. 18(4):267–275.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.194 · 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