Needle-retention and density patterns in <i>Pinus sylvestris</i> in the Rhone Valley of Switzerland: comparing results of the needle-trace method with visual defoliation assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used the needle-trace method (NTM) to reveal the needle-retention patterns of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) over the past 100 years. The average annual needle retention (ANR) on main stems has gradually decreased from five needle sets in the 1890s to four needle sets in the 1990s. Needle retention is significantly correlated with tree age and altitude, and the decrease in needle retention may be at least in part due to the increasing ages of sample trees. The average needle density varied plotwise between 7.2 and 10.5 short shoots/cm. In a comparison of ANR values and visually assessed foliage percentage from the Swiss Forest Health Inventory between 1985 and 1996, we found significant correlation between the mean annual values. While the direction of annual change was identical in two thirds of all years we found disagreement in 3 years. Both needle retention and foliage were lower in the early 1990s than in the late 1980s. With the help of the NTM we can show that there had been similar decreases in foliage usually connected with severe droughts during the last century.
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 | 0.001 | 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".