MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063898204 · doi:10.1139/x03-016

Effects of chronic ammonium sulfate treatment on basal area increment in red spruce and sugar maple at the Bear Brook Watershed in Maine

2003· article· en· W2063898204 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
José Alexander Elvir, G. B. Wiersma, Alan S. White, Ivan J. Fernandez

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMaine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station
KeywordsWatershedBasal areaMapleSugarAceraceaeBotanyForestryHorticultureChemistryBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Responses in basal area increment (BAI) of sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) and red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.) to chronic ammonium sulfate ((NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 ) treatment were examined at the Bear Brook Watershed in Maine. The Bear Brook Watershed is a pair-watershed forest ecosystem study with West Bear watershed treated with (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 at a rate of 1800 equiv.·ha –1 ·year –1 since 1989, while East Bear watershed serves as a reference. Following 10 years of treatment, BAI was significantly higher for sugar maple trees growing in the treated watershed, with yearly increases relative to the reference watershed ranging from 13% in 1999 to 104% in 1996. The increase in sugar maple radial growth was attributed to a fertilization effect from the (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 treatment. A reduction in BAI in sugar maple growing in the treated watershed observed in 1998 and 1999 was attributed to internal stresses and growth allocation to crown recovery after the severe 1998 ice storm. Red spruce showed no BAI growth responses to the treatment. Lower foliar Mg and Ca concentrations in red spruce in the treated watershed and lower soil responses to N enrichment in treated softwood stands compared with treated hardwood stands could explain the lack of BAI response in red spruce.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations41
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207