Spring frost and decay fungi are implicated in suppressing aspen re-growth following partial cleaning in juvenile stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) regenerates at high densities following manual cleaning. • Ten-year-old stands located near Lac La Biche and Peace River, Alberta were manually cleaned to three densities (0, 500 or 1500 stems ha−1) at three times (bud set, dormancy or bud flush) to test the hypothesis that maintaining residual aspen reduces regeneration. • At Lac La Biche up to 98% of the aspen regeneration died in the partially-cleaned plots compared to 67% at Peace River five years post-treatment. A spring frost in the second growing season at Lac La Biche is hypothesized to be the inciting factor predisposing the stump sprouts to infection by decay fungi such as Armillaria root rot, resulting in reduced density and height of the aspen regeneration at Lac La Biche relative to Peace River. Drought and ungulate herbivory provided additional stresses. The high mortality of aspen regeneration at Lac La Biche shifted the understory regeneration from aspen to balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera L.). • These results indicate that maintaining 1500 stems ha−1 of residual aspen will not effectively control the re-sprouting of aspen; however, the vulnerability of aspen regeneration to spring frost and other stressors can nearly eradicate the re-growth of aspen.
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".