Effects of timing of glyphosate application on jack pine, black spruce, and white spruce plantations in northern Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deferring conifer release treatments is sometimes necessary, but its effects on crop tree performance are not well understood. We investigated the effects of deferring glyphosate applications on jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.), black spruce (Picea mariana [Mill.] BSP), and white spruce (Picea glauca [Moench.] Voss.) plantations established on a dry site with moderate competition and a moist site with heavier competition in The Pas, northern Manitoba. At each site, experimental treatments included no herbicide and one glyphosate (formulated as Vision ® ) at 1.42 kg acid equivalent glyphosate ha -1 application between one and five years after planting with three replications. Survival, root collar diameter, and height of the three conifers were repeatedly measured for ten consecutive years following planting. Survival of the three conifers was not affected by glyphosate application. For all the three species, root collar diameter and stand volume of crop trees increased significantly in glyphosate-treated plots, compared to control plots. Varying the timing of glyphosate application between year 1 and 5 resulted in a similar conifer dimensions. Glyphosate application significantly improved height growth of black spruce and marginally white spruce, but not jack pine. On these sites, glyphosate reduced the cover of woody species, but grass, forbs and shrubs rapidly captured the newly available growing space. A two variable regression analysis revealed that grass cover negatively affected stand volume of all three conifer species. Cover of tall shrub, forbs, and interaction of cover and height of tall shrubs were the next most important variables to explain jack pine, black spruce, and white spruce volume growth, respectively. Key words: vegetation management, forest herbicides, survival, growth, stand volume, long-term repeated measurements
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".