Influence of fertilization, weed control, and pine litter on loblolly pine growth and productivity and understory plant development through 12 growing seasons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On a silt loam soil in central Louisiana, three cultural treatments were applied to a seedling loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantation. The treatments were in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design: (1) no fertilization or a broadcast application of 177 kg N/ha and 151 kg P/ha; (2) no herbicides applied or broadcast or spot applications of hexazinone, sulfometuron methyl, or glyphosate herbicides and felling as required to control competing vegetation during the first three growing seasons; and (3) no litter applied or broadcast application of pine litter to form a 10 to 15 cm layer in the first growing season. Through 12 growing seasons, the fertilization or herbicide treatment significantly increased stand growth (α = 0.05), and these two treatments had an additive effect (no treatments, 209 m 3 /ha; fertilization, 328 m 3 /ha; herbicide, 280 m 3 /ha; fertilization and herbicide, 362 m 3 /ha). However, because litter application probably had a minor fertilization effect, the fertilizer and litter combination produced the greatest yield (370 m 3 /ha). The herbicide and litter combination adversely affected pine survival, and so applying all three treatments was no more effective than fertilization alone. The loblolly pine overstory was the dominant factor influencing the long-term development of the understory.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".