MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1793746226 · doi:10.17221/44/2012-jfs

Growth of Norway spruce seedlings after transplanting into silty soil amended with biochar: a bioassay in a growth chamber

2013· article· en· W1793746226 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Juha Heiskanen, Priit Tammeorg, R. Kasten Dumroese

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forest Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeedlingAgronomyPicea abiesSoil waterBiocharBiomass (ecology)Carbon sequestrationTransplantingEnvironmental scienceTaigaShootBiologyBotanyEcologyChemistrySoil sciencePyrolysisCarbon dioxide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biochar (BC), the carbon-rich by-product resulting from pyrolysis of biomass, is used for bioenergy and increasingly as a soil additive for carbon sequestration and soil improvement. However, information about the effects of BC on forest productivity and reforestation success, especially on boreal and temperate forest soils, is scant. We examined the effects of two BC types (Canadian and Finnish) added in proportions up to 60 vol.% into a common alluvial silty soil on the growth of transplanted Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) seedlings in a growth chamber. We found no marked differences in seedling growth among the binary growing media mixes used. Seedling growth attributes (seedling height, terminal shoot growth, root volume) differed consistently only between the BC types in the highest proportion used. The terminal shoot growth differed overall among the two BC types. These results suggest that BC may be applied into mineral soils without detrimental chemical effects on tree plantation success. Our results provide foundation for further field research on the longer-term impacts of adding BCs to boreal forest soils.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forest ScienceSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207