Growth and nutrition of three conifer species across site gradients of north coastal British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared height growth and nutrition (foliar nutrient concentrations and retranslocation rates from 1-year-old needles) of second-growth plantations on imperfectly drained, lower productivity cedarhemlocksalal forests with those of more productive ecosystems of north coastal British Columbia. Soils ranged from deep organic profiles to well-drained mineral soils derived from igneous to metamorphic bedrock. Leader increments on imperfectly drained sites were smaller than on well-drained sites, averaging 42% less for western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.), 56% less for Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carrière), and 32% less for western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don). Strong linear correlations were found between leader increment and foliar N, P, and S concentrations for all three tree species, and baseline foliar data for productive sites were presented. The foliar N ratios with P, S, and K were consistent across sites and indicated that many key foliar nutrients increased proportionally to the availability of N. A comparison of nutrient concentrations between current and 1-year-old foliage generally showed little difference on poorer sites, which suggested that there had been no retranslocation of nutrients from young needles within trees to compensate for low soil nutrient availability. This study confirmed the inherently low productivity of cedar-hemlock-salal forests, especially on granodiorite and gneissic diorite bedrock types, and suggested the need for site treatments or long rotations for sustainable management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".