Soil texture and other site-level factors differentially affect growth of Scotch broom (<i>Cytisus scoparius</i>) and Douglas-fir (<i>Pseudotsuga menziesii</i>) seedlings in the western Pacific Northwest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The invasive shrub Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link) is a pervasive threat to regenerating Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco var. menziesii) stands in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Field observations indicate that the susceptibility of areas to Scotch broom invasion and dominance can vary by site. We selected 10 sites throughout the western Pacific Northwest that spanned a gradient of soil textures and other factors to test the site-specific susceptibility of Douglas-fir to overtopping by Scotch broom. We expected to find that the ability of Scotch broom to dominate a site was mediated by site-level factors, particularly those influencing soil water — the most limiting factor to growth in the region. We found Scotch broom and Douglas-fir were inversely affected by site-level factors. In general, Douglas-fir absolute height growth rates were more competitive with those of Scotch broom on fine-textured soils than on more coarsely textured soils. We also found Douglas-fir to have a more dramatic response to increasing down woody material than Scotch broom. Scotch broom height growth approached an asymptote at 3 m. Sites with fast-growing Douglas-fir were able to surpass this height 6–7 years after planting and appear likely to avoid suppression by Scotch broom.
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".