Basal Area Growth of Sugar Maple in Relation to Acid Deposition, Stand Health, and Soil Nutrients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have shown in noncalcareous soils that acid deposition may have increased soil leaching of basic cations above the input rate from soil weathering and atmospheric depositions. This phenomenon may have increased soil acidity levels, and, as a consequence, may have reduced the availability of these essential nutrients for forest growth. Fourteen plots of the Forest Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Network in Québec were used to examine the relation between post-industrial growth trends of sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) and acid deposition (N and S), stand decline rate, and soil exchangeable nutrient concentrations. Atmospheric N and S deposition and soil exchangeable acidity were positively associated with stand decline rate, and negatively with the average tree basal area increment trend. The growth rate reduction reached on average 17% in declining stands compared with healthy ones. The results showed a significant sugar maple growth rate reduction since 1960 on acid soils. The appearance of the forest decline phenomenon in Québec can be attributed, at least partially, to soil acidification and acid deposition levels.
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 | 0.001 | 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".