Casuarina species in Algeria: reviewing their identity, distribution and symbiotic status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since their introduction at the beginning of the 19th century, Casuarina species have become important components of the Algerian landscape, yet the numbers of species present in Algeria and their identity, distribution, and symbiotic status are still not well understood. A survey conducted on 2,304 trees in 96 Casuarina stands across Algeria indicates that they are represented exclusively by five species: Casuarina cristata Miq., C. cunninghamiana Miq., C. equisetifolia L., C. glauca Sieber ex Spreng. and C. junghuhniana Miq. Two species, C. cunninghamiana and C. glauca, were the most common – the former occurring more often in the relatively humid and temperate areas of the country while the latter is most frequent in the drier and warmer areas. Production of seedlings of C. cunninghamiana and C. glauca in 12 nurseries resulted in low rates of spontaneous mycorrhizal infection frequency and nodulation, suggesting that inoculation of seedlings with selected mycorrhizal fungi and/or Frankia strains in the nursery would be necessary to improve their establishment in the field. This study is the first survey of the geographical distribution of Casuarina species in Algeria and should lead to more efficient utilization of this widely used tree genus in Algeria.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".