MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409919280 · doi:10.3390/plants14091347

Evaluating Douglas Fir’s Provenances in Romania Through Multi-Trait Selection

2025· article· en· W4409919280 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emanuel Stoica, Alin-Madalin Alexandru, Georgeta Mihai, V. Scărlătescu, Alexandru Lucian Curtu

Bibliographic record

VenuePlants · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraitDouglas firDiameter at breast heightSelection (genetic algorithm)ForestryGeographyBiologyIdeotypeIndex (typography)AgroforestryCrop

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[Mirb.] Franco) is a valuable timber species native to western North America that was introduced to Europe in the 19th century. The objective of this study was to select the most valuable and stable Douglas fir provenances in Romania by combining growth and quality traits, using two indices recently used in forest tree species: the multi-trait genotype-ideotype distance index (MGIDI) and the multi-trait stability index (MTSI). The study was conducted across three common garden experiments in Romania, established in 1977, evaluating 61 provenances from the United States, Canada, Germany, France, and Romania. The analyzed traits were diameter at breast height (DBH), total height (TH), and pruned height (PH). Significant genotype-environment interactions were observed, with the Douglas fir showing superior growth performance in one of the testing sites in western Romania (Aleșd). The MGIDI and MTSI identified high-performing provenances from diverse geographic origins, including the Pacific Northwest, Europe, and Canada. Selection differentials ranged from 2.8% to 10.9% for individual traits, highlighting the potential for genetic improvement. The selected provenances represent valuable genetic resources of Douglas fir that are adapted to environmental conditions in the Carpathian region, contributing to the development of climate-adaptive breeding strategies and sustainable forest management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlantsSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207