Impacts of harvesting and postharvest treatments on soil bulk density, soil strength, and early growth of<i>Pinus taeda</i>in the Gulf Coastal Plain: a Long-Term Soil Productivity affiliated study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At four sites in the Gulf Coastal Plain, mechanical whole-tree harvesting (MWT) removed more biomass and nutrients than hand-fell bole-only harvesting (HFBO). Soil compaction and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) regeneration growth varied among sites. At one location, MWT increased soil bulk density by 0.1 Mg·m 3 , from 1.14 to 1.24 Mg·m 3 , with no effect on tree growth. At a second location, where bulk density increased by 0.1 Mg·m 3 , from 1.41 to 1.51 Mg·m 3 , pine growth was reduced significantly. Soil strength at 1520 cm depth increased by 0.30.5 MPa at both locations. However, where MWT reduced pine growth, herbaceous weed control mitigated the effect. Fertilization with N and P, where P was limiting, increased pine growth irrespective of other treatments. Where P was not limiting, addition of a complete fertilizer reduced the mitigating effect of weed control. Bedding reduced soil compaction without improving early tree growth; however, bedding was not tested on the two sites where soil compaction appeared to be at critical levels. Broadcast burning increased survival but reduced pine growth irrespective of harvesting method. Our results suggest that the impact of intensive management on site productivity varies among sites, is potentially accumulative, and is subject to change over time.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it