Efficiency Factors for Bark Substrates: Biostability, Aeration, or Phytotoxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Quebec (Canada), approximately 3.5 million tons of bark are produced annually, most of which are burned or buried without being used or recycled, whereas they could be used as basic components in growing media. However, growing media made of fresh bark often inhibits plant growth due to high concentrations of phenols, terpenes, organic acids, and heavy metals or by creating physical barriers to gas exchange. Therefore, the objectives of this study were: first, to evaluate the phytotoxicity of barks from seven different tree species on lettuce ( Lactuca sativa L. ‘Grand Rapids’) germination and tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. ‘Trust’) growth; and second, to identify the possible physical (aeration, water availability), chemical, or biochemical (heavy metal, phenol, terpene, and sugar concentrations) factors causing those reductions. Results show that bark origin affected both lettuce germination and tomato dry matter production. Best results were obtained with raw paper birch ( Betula papyrifera Marsh.; PB) bark, which outperformed the control (rockwool). Among bark substrate properties, air‐filled porosity (θ a ) was significantly correlated to shoot dry weight (SDW) and germination index (GI). Plant growth parameters were correlated most strongly to biological stability, and then to θ a , likely reflecting microbial competition for oxygen during the decomposition of organic matter. No relationships were found with terpenes, organic acids, or nutrient elements. These findings seemed to indicate that the apparent phytotoxicity of some barks could be explained by insufficient aeration in the substrate.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".