MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2060917687 · doi:10.1139/x06-121

Effects of mulching and insecticides on establishment and growth of Norway spruce

2006· article· en· W2060917687 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karin Johansson, Göran Örlander

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulchPicea abiesAgronomyEnvironmental scienceWater contentHorticultureBiologyForestryBotanyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Establishment of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) seedlings is often restricted by competition from vegetation, drought, and damage by pine weevils. In this study, effects of mulching on these factors were investigated. Norway spruce seedlings were planted on fresh and 1-year-old clearcuts treated with mulch on three sites in southern Sweden. Mulch was made of slash from the old stand and applied on whole blocks at three different depths: 0, 10, and 20 cm. Both insecticide-treated and untreated seedlings were planted. By reducing the competing vegetation and improving soil moisture and mineralization, mulching created a favorable growth environment. Mulching significantly improved growth in terms of height, diameter, and volume of the seedlings. Growth continued to increase over time in mulched treatments, probably as an effect of increased nutrient availability. The 20 cm mulch layer generated the greatest increase in growth throughout the 10-year experimental period. Soil moisture was preserved under the isolating mulch layer and during periods of drought soil water potential was significantly higher in mulched treatments. After 2 years, percent cover of competing vegetation was 50%–60% without mulch and 10%–20% with a mulch depth of 20 cm. Insecticide-treated seedlings achieved a survival rate close to 100% in all mulching treatments, whereas survival among untreated seedlings was only 40% on some clearcuts. Mulching alone did not affect survival or abundance of pine weevils.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicSeedling growth and survival studies→French-language works237,207→