Seedling emergence of <i>Pinus sylvestris</i> in characterized seedbed substrates under different moisture conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Establishment of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stands from seed is often unsuccessful because of unsuitable environmental conditions, such as limited soil moisture or air humidity. Improved seedling emergence could be achieved by soil preparation if site-specific optimal seedbeds were specified. Therefore the effects of seedbed substrates (13 characterized mixtures of sand, silt, and organic matter) on seedling emergence were determined after 14-day emergence tests in small laboratory chambers with four moisture conditions (2 levels of relative air humidity (RH), 95 and 65%, in combination with 2 levels of substrate water tension, 3 and 10 kPa). Seeds were placed in (partially buried) and on noncompacted and compacted substrates. At 95% RH, seedling emergence was 80 to 95% (seed lot maximum 94%) regardless of the substrate, with the exception of seeds placed in silt substrates (30-70%). At 65% RH, seedling emergence was 90% on silt, but considerably lower on organic matter and sand substrates, where organic admixture improved emergence for sand, but had a neutral or negative effect for silt. At 65% RH, partial seed burial, i.e., with good seed-substrate contact, improved emergence for organic matter and sand substrates, but impaired emergence for pure silt in noncompacted substrates at 3 kPa soil water tension. The effect of compaction on emergence was small for most substrates and had an effect only at 65% RH and 10 kPa tension. Seedling emergence and soil hydraulic conductivity at 3 kPa water tension and 95% RH were negatively correlated for partially buried seeds, but regardless of seed position, they were positively correlated at 10 kPa tension and 65% RH. These results can be used as guiding principles for the creation of seedbed substrates and seeding techniques.
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".