Overlaying compacted or uncompacted construction fill has no negative impact on white oak and sweetgum growth and physiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Raising the soil grade, frequently required during building construction, is thought to damage trees and is of concern to foresters responsible for tree protection on such sites. We investigated the effects of applying fill over the roots of 22-year-old white oaks (Quercus alba L.) and 13-year-old sweetgums (Liquidambar styraciflua L.). Treatments included a control (no fill), fill (sandy loam C horizon soil spread 20 cm deep), and compacted fill (same as fill but compacted). Trees with fill had soil held away from trunks or not. After 3 years, there was no consistent treatment effect on growth, chlorophyll fluorescence, or soil respiration in either species. Fill disrupted normal soil moisture patterns. White oak plots with fills had lower soil water contents than controls. In sweetgum plots, soil underlying fill was typically drier than fill layers, whereas control plot soil moisture tended to increase with depth. Fills did not affect overall root density for either species. White oak grew roots well into fill soils, but sweetgum did not, although sweetgum root distribution shifted upwards under fills. Other factors associated with raising the grade, such as soil trafficking and root severance, may be responsible for much of the tree decline attributed to fill.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".