Best of both worlds: hybrids of two commercially important pines (<i>Pinus contorta × Pinus banksiana</i>) combine increased growth potential and high drought tolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over 18 million hectares of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. var. latifolia Engelm.) forests have been affected by a massive mountain pine beetle outbreak in western Canada. The ensuing need for reforestation compels forest managers to deploy more drought-resistant stock in anticipation of a hotter and drier future climate. Recent studies suggest that naturally occurring lodgepole pine × jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) hybrids may be more drought-resistant than pure lodgepole pine. We used single-nucleotide polymorphism markers to determine the level of jack pine introgression present in the region J lodgepole pine seed orchard, in northwest Alberta, and we identified six hybrid genotypes with 10%–18% jack pine introgression for further study. We compared the performance of open-pollinated seedlings of lodgepole, jack, and hybrid pines under well-watered and drought conditions in a greenhouse experiment. Seedlings were subjected to repeg ated drought cycles, withholding water for either 2 or 3 weeks. We found that hybrid pines grew significantly faster than lodgepole pine under well-watered conditions while retaining the high tolerance to prolonged drought exhibited by lodgepole pine seedlings, a particularly beneficial combination of traits during the critical stage of establishment. We therefore suggest the deployment of hybrid lodgepole pine as a strategy to promote adaptation to hotter and drier future climates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".