Effect of midrotation fertilization on growth and specific gravity of loblolly pine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wood properties and growth were measured on breast-height cores and on disks collected at different heights from a thinned and fertilized midrotation loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda L.) plantation in the lower Coastal Plain of North Carolina. The study was laid out in a randomized complete-block design receiving four levels of nitrogen (N) fertilizer: unfertilized control and 112, 224, and 336 kg/ha plus 28 kg/ha of phosphorus with each treatment. The effect of fertilization was analyzed for the whole-disk and for a 4 year average following fertilization on data collected from breast-height cores and from disks. The fertilization treatments did not significantly affect whole-disk wood properties but significantly increased radial growth. Fertilization rate of 336 kg/ha N significantly reduced 4 year average ring specific gravity and latewood specific gravity. Wood properties of trees that received 112 and 224 kg/ha N were not affected following treatment. There was no height related trend in wood property changes due to fertilization. Fertilization significantly increased ring basal area and earlywood basal area. In summary, there was a decline in wood properties and an increase in basal area growth immediately after fertilization; both depended on the rate of fertilizer applied irrespective of height.
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".