Effects of cultural intensity and planting density on stand-level aboveground biomass production and allocation for 12-year-old loblolly pine plantations in the Upper Coastal Plain and Piedmont of the southeastern United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To strengthen financial returns and sustainably manage pine plantations for a mixture of traditional merchantable forest products and biomass for energy, we may need to modify and optimize loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda L.) plantation management regimes. There is limited information on stand-level biomass production and partitioning, which is critical to evaluate alternative culture regimes including cultural intensity and planting density. In the present study, effects of cultural intensity and planting density on biomass accumulation and partitioning in loblolly pine plantations at age 12 were evaluated with destructive biomass sampling data from plots of a unique culture/density study. More intensive culture increased stand-level stem, bark, and branch biomass and aboveground biomass but did not affect foliage biomass. In general, culture intensity did not affect stand-level aboveground biomass partitioning. Planting density significantly affected stand-level aboveground biomass accumulation and partitioning; however, this effect was no longer significant among densities above 2224 trees·ha –1 . More intensive culture or lower planting density resulted in less foliage per unit of live-branch biomass. Partitioning to stems relative to branches increased with increasing planting density. Both cultural intensity and planting density had no significant effects on leaf area index and stand-level specific gravity. Planting density significantly affected the foliage density. There were no significant interactions of planting density and cultural intensity.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".