Effect of soil mounding and mechanical weed control on hybrid poplar early growth and vole damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared growth of hybrid poplar in relation to soil mounding and mechanical weed control on a former agricultural site under boreal climate in order to assess optimal management scenarios. Height and basal diameter growth of 2 clones (Populus maximowiczii × P. balsamifera [915319] and P. × euramericana × P. maximowiczii [916401]) were evaluated after 3 growing seasons in 2 mounding (mounded, unmounded) and 4 weed control treatments (0: no weed control; 1, 2, and 3: 1, 2, or 3 passes of mechanical weed control). Net photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, soil temperature, and percent cover and height of competing vegetation were measured to explain the effects of soil mounding and weed control on tree growth. Two passes of weed control increased growth of trees by 23% in basal diameter and 12% in height, while mounding had no effect on growth. Both mounding and weed control reduced the cover of weedy vegetation, which was negatively correlated with growth of clone 915 319. Mounding did not increase mean soil temperatures in spring and even reduced them in the fall, while weed control had no effect on soil temperature. Finally, mounding significantly reduced the frequency and severity of damage (girdling) caused by voles during 2005–2006, especially for the plots that were not weeded.
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".