Size- and age-class distributions of Fraser fir following balsam woolly adelgid infestation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fraser fir (Abies fraseri (Pursh) Poir.) has suffered catastrophic mortality throughout most of its native range from an exotic insect, the balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae Ratz.). To assess the regeneration potential and viability of fir populations, overstory and understory Fraser fir size and age structure were analyzed. The data were collected from thirty-six 400-m2 permanent plots, stratified into four stand canopy composition types, established near the summits of five mountains in the Great Smoky Mountains. We found that, where canopy mortality was severe, fir advance regeneration was re-entering the overstory. In seriously impacted stands, mortality of large fir and increased recruitment have produced distributions characterized by few large fir and relatively high densities of small fir. Densities of 0- to 10-year-old fir seedlings and fir seedlings [Formula: see text]0.25 m tall were much lower in stands dominated by dead fir than in mostly intact fir stands. While the lack of reproducing adults appears to be the main cause, competition with invasive species and higher seedling mortality from environmental factors probably contribute. These results lead to a hypothesis that Fraser fir will undergo a regeneration-mortality cycle with a decrease in the numbers of each successive generation.
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) | 0.001 | 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".