Twelfth-year response of Douglas-fir to area of weed control and herbaceous versus woody weed control treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coastal Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco var. menziesii) response to eight weed control treatments was measured 12 years after planting at two Oregon sites. Treatments included four areas of weed control around individual trees (0.375, 1.49, 3.35, and 5.95 m 2 ), no weed control (check), total vegetation control, control of herbaceous competition only, or control of woody competition only. Douglas-fir growth and woody-species invasion differed between the Coast Range site (Summit) and the Cascade Range foothills site (Marcola). Woody species reinvasion was more intense at Summit, with Douglas-fir cumulative mortality in the check treatment reaching 23% in year 12. Woody-only control improved Douglas-fir growth at Summit but had no significant effect on growth at Marcola. Total vegetation control had a profound effect on stem volume growth 12 years after planting. At Summit, total vegetation control resulted in a 355% increase in volume per hectare relative to the check. At Marcola the increase was only 63%. At Summit, growth increased with each increase in area of weed control, whereas at Marcola growth increased with increasing area of weed control up to 3.35 m 2 of control. Results suggest that much of the gain in volume growth attributable to weed control may be lost if weed-control treatments are not highly efficacious. The differential response to woody control indicates that its benefit at a given site is strongly related to the abundance of competitive hardwood species, which may be predicted from the preharvest stand structure and vegetation community.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".