Effects of annual fertilization and complete competition control on current annual increment, foliar development, and growth efficiency of different aged <i>Pinus taeda</i> stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects that competing vegetation and nitrogen limitation have on the current annual increment (CAI), leaf biomass, and growth efficiency (GE) of different aged loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) stands planted on a Piedmont and lower Coastal Plain location in Georgia, U.S.A. were determined by measuring stands receiving a factorial combination of complete interspecific competition control and annual nitrogen fertilization. At the Piedmont location, CAI increased with age (5, 10, and 12 years) as well as fertilization (7.39.2 Mg·ha1) and competition control (6.89.6 Mg·ha1). The effects of fertilization on leaf biomass increased with stand age (no difference at age 5 to 1.5 Mg·ha1 difference at age 12), while the effects of competition control on leaf biomass decreased with stand age (difference of 2.5 Mg·ha1 at age 5 to difference of 1.6 Mg·ha1 at age 12). At the Coastal Plain location, fertilization increased CAI from 10.3 to 14.8 Mg·ha1. Leaf biomass increased with competition control (4.95.5 Mg·ha1) and fertilization (4.46.0 Mg·ha1). Leaf biomass increased with stand age for the fertilized stands (5.37.0 Mg·ha1 between age 7 and 13) and decreased with stand age for nonfertilized stands (4.94.0 Mg·ha1 between age 7 and 13). At the Coastal Plain location, fertilization increased the GE of the age-7 stands from 2.34 to 2.86 but decreased the GE of the age-13 stands from 2.32 to 2.14. In general, GE decreased as mean tree size increased indicating that changes in GE related to treatments may be confounded with changes in tree size. Results of this experiment emphasize the importance of nutrition on stand growth as fertilization increased leaf biomass and may increase stem production per unit of foliage at early stages of development.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".