Soil Compaction Reduced the Growth of Lodgepole Pine and Douglas‐fir Seedlings in Raised Beds after Two Growing Seasons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growth of lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) seedlings after two growing seasons was reduced by medium and high levels of compaction in loamy sand and silt loam soils that received one of three compaction treatments (low = 0.70 relative bulk density [RBD], medium 0.79–0.82 RBD, and high 0.84 RBD). Survival was reduced on the loamy sand, but not on the silt loam. Soil water content was adjusted with irrigation to levels associated with plant water stress (near wilting point), reduced aeration (near 10% air‐filled porosity), and intermediate conditions. Lodgepole pine survival on loamy sand was increased at high water content, but was unaffected by water regime on silt loam. For both soil types, the best lodgepole pine growth was observed for the intermediate watering level. The detrimental effects of compaction were consistent across all water regimes. We also evaluated the response of Douglas‐fir [ Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca (Beissn.) Franco] on silt loam and it was similar to lodgepole pine, except that survival was lower on the compacted silt loam, and under dry conditions. For both species, limitations to growth and survival at medium and high compaction levels were consistent with expectations based on the least limiting water range. Our results, however, are also consistent with a continuously declining growth response due to increasing compaction. The RBD was a good predictor of limiting soil conditions for both soil types and species, and substantially reduced survival and growth was observed at RBD levels higher than 0.80.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".