Survival and growth of the tree species and provenances in response to salinity on a discharge site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The survival and growth of 24 native tree species planted in 2 trials on a saline discharge site, which had a soil salinity gradient as well as watertable depth and salinity, near Wellington in central-west New South Wales were investigated. Several provenances of some species (including Acacia stenophylla , Eucalyptus camaldulensis and E. spathulata ) and clones of E. camaldulensis and E. spathulata , were also evaluated. Each accession was represented by a 5-tree row plot with 8 replications. Root-zone salinity (ECe0–60 cm) at the tree and plot level was calculated from in situ measurements of bulk soil salinity using an EM-38 device (Geonics, Canada). Growth measurements are reported at 72 (trial 1) and 61 months (trial 2) after planting. For each trial, 4 replicates were classified as either non-saline (mean ECe <2 dS/m) or saline (ECe range from about 6 to 10 dS/m). Watertable depths varied from 0 to 1.5 m (depending on season) in the saline areas to >4 m in the non-saline, upslope areas. Survival and growth differed significantly between species, provenances and clones in both trials and under both saline and non-saline conditions. For most accessions, trees survived and grew better under non-saline conditions. Under non-saline conditions A. mearnsii , E. camaldulensis and E. occidentalis performed best; for example, A . mearnsii (16268) attained a mean height of 7 m and mean DBH of 11 cm at 61 months in trial 2. Under saline conditions, A. stenophylla , E. camaldulensis , E. occidentalis and E. spathulata performed best; for example, E . occidentalis attained a height of 6.9 m height and 12.3 cm DBH after 61 months in trial 2. Responses of selected species to root-zone salinity are provided; significant differences were found between species with E. occidentalis and A. stenophylla showing no growth decline up to ECe of 10 dS/m, while most other species showed varying rates of decline with increasing salinity. Three years after thinning each trial, good coppice regrowth was observed from cut stumps of all species except A. mearnsii and Melaleuca halmaturorum .
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".