Soil properties and lodgepole pine growth on forest landings rehabilitated by tillage and fertilizer application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soils on forest landings are often degraded and unable to support optimal growth of planted conifers unless rehabilitation practices are applied. This study evaluated the effects of tillage and fertilization on soil properties and growth of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) seedlings on rehabilitated forest landings in the central interior of British Columbia. Six study sites were rehabilitated in 1998 (but without topsoil replacement) and planted with lodgepole pine in 1999. Tillage treatments were: (i) no tillage; (ii) low intensity (one pass of an excavator and six-toothed rake, target clod size 8–10 cm); (iii) medium intensity (two passes, target clod size 4–7 cm); and, (iv) high intensity (three passes, target clod size 1–3 cm). Fertilizers were applied at the time of planting as slow-release formulations; treatments included: (i) no fertilizer; (ii) NPK-fertilizer; and, (iii) NPK + S-fertilizer. After 5 yr, soil mechanical resistance was higher on the untilled control than the tilled treatments. Neither tillage nor fertilization had any effects on soil chemical properties (total C and N, pH, cation exchange capacity, exchangeable cations). Tillage effects after one growing season were variable; however, after four or five growing seasons, the low-intensity tillage resulted in greater seedling height and diameter growth than the untilled control. After one growing season, fertilization increased seedling height and diameter growth relative to the untreated control, but after four or five growing seasons, fertilization had no effect on lodgepole pine growth. Our findings indicate that a single pass with the excavator and rake was the most suitable rehabilitation practice on these sites. Key words: Forest soil rehabilitation, landing and road rehabilitation, soil conservation, soil degradation, soil compaction, soil productivity
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".