Size Influences on the Survival of Willow Cuttings Under Operational Field Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
) are increasingly used in operational-scale ecosystem reclamation; however, different opinions exist regarding the optimal cutting size for planting under field conditions. We compared the survival of field-planted willow cuttings sourced from upland and lowland areas with varying diameters and lengths across two growing seasons. Cuttings were grouped into 15 size classes with different diameters (0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 cm) and lengths (15, 30, 50, and 100 cm) and planted in groups according to their source (upland or lowland, each area potentially reflecting a different assemblage of species) within three reclaimed industrial borrow pits east of Peace River, Alberta. We considered cuttings that displayed leaf flushing as surviving individuals. Survival probability tended to be greater for larger diameter and length cuttings sourced from lowland habitats. Cutting survival was greatly reduced in year two, especially for upland-sourced cuttings. The greater survival in larger sizes we observed may be due to greater total carbohydrates available for leaf flushing and rooting. As we did not control for species composition, the higher survival of cuttings from low-lying areas may result from species-specific differences among cutting sources, reflected by compositional differences we detected among surviving individuals in year two. Our findings suggest that under field settings, cuttings with > 2.0 cm diameter by 50-100 cm length sourced from low-lying flood-prone areas may be optimal for willow establishment. Further studies should examine the role of species and population-level genetics in driving the upland versus lowland differences in observed willow-cutting survival.
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 | 0.000 |
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 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".