Effects of experimental acidification and alkalinization on soil and growth and health of <i>Acer saccharum</i> Marsh.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Experimental application of eight acidifying, neutral, or alkalizer compounds (range: –16 to 16 kmol ha –1 of acid‐neutralizing capacity [ANC]) was realized in two northern hardwood stands having significantly different soil base saturation (BS) (a “poor” and a “rich” site) to assess responses of soil physico‐chemical properties, and nutrition, growth, and health of sugar maple ( Acer saccharum Marsh.) trees in the short (3 y) and longer term (10 y). The treatments influenced the main indicators of acidity in the forest floor (soil exchangeable‐Ca saturation [S Ca ], BS, exchangeable‐acidity saturation [S H+Al ], and the S Ca /S H+Al ratio) at both sites, their values increasing (decreasing for S H+Al ) along the ANC treatment gradient in both the short and longer term, except for pH. Base saturation of the upper 15 cm of the mineral B horizons of soils was influenced at the two sites 10 y after treatment application. Although ANC treatments affected nutrient concentrations of tree foliage in the short term, their effect was no longer detectable after 10 y at the two sites. Growth, however, was strongly related to ANC treatments after 10 y, but only at the poor site. From 1990 to 2000, the basal‐area growth rate of trees at the poor site was (mean ± SE) –0.62 ± 0.28 cm 2 y –2 tree –1 for the most negative ANC treatment to +0.90 ± 0.20 cm 2 y –2 tree –1 for the most positive ANC treatment. A climatic‐stress episode occurring in 1995/96 appeared to accentuate the growth decline of trees subjected to the most negative ANC treatment at the poor site. The experimental results support the hypothesis that atmospheric acid deposition load can cause forest soil base‐cation depletion, acidification, and predispose sugar maple to health and growth decline in the longer term in base‐cation‐poor soils, and that the phenomenon may be reversible by adding alkalizers.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".