Eleven-year growth response of young conifers to biosolids or nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer on northern Vancouver Island
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To test the hypothesis that fertilization with municipal biosolids causes a larger long-term tree growth response than fertilization with conventional chemical fertilizers, we measured the height and diameter of planted western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.), and amabilis fir (Abies amabilis (Dougl.) Forbes) 11 years after fertilization with biosolids or nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer. There were four replicate plots of each tree species and treatment combination. The stand volume in cedar plots doubled in response to both treatments; in treated hemlock and fir plots, the stand volume was about triple that in control plots. There was little difference in tree response between biosolids-amended and fertilized plots. A type 3 response (growth rates remain elevated relative to those in the control) was evident for hemlock and fir. Biosolids appear to be as effective as chemical fertilizers in promoting conifer growth on these nutrient-poor sites, but their effect is neither greater nor more prolonged.
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".