Using spruces (Picea spp.) for Icelandic afforestation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Afforestation can help address climate change and biodiversity loss. Iceland is a valuable case study to assess afforestation at extreme locations at high latitudes (63–68°N). We used a ~ 23-year dataset of a provenance trial from the Icelandic Forest Service (now Land & Forest Iceland) to determine the best spruce species ( Picea spp.) and provenances for afforestation. Sites were either frost-prone or protected (i.e., non-frost-prone) locations, and the latest height and survival data were assessed from six sites (out of nine) in 2018. Provenances were mainly from three spruce species from southwestern Canada and southern Alaska (53–61°N). Sitka spruce ( Picea sitchensis ) and its hybrids or introgressants with white spruce ( P. glauca ) survived and grew well in protected areas (≥ 60% and ≥ 275 cm), while white spruce and its hybrids or introgressants with Sitka spruce performed better in frost-prone areas (≥ 55% and ≥ 285 cm, based on combined frost-prone sites). The only provenance suitable for both frost-prone and protected places was a Sitka/Lutz spruce ( P. x lutzii ) introgressant from Iniskin Bay, Alaska. Additional genetic research would help guide afforestation in harsh areas at high latitudes (a distributional limit of many tree species) and inform forest management about novel environments and sustainable practices. Climate change should also be considered for afforestation efforts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".