Development of size hierarchies prior to the onset of density-dependent mortality in irrigated and fertilized loblolly pine stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nine years of growth and stand development were investigated in a 2 × 2 nutrient and water factorial experiment with four replications. The study was located on an infertile, excessively drained sandy site in Scotland County, North Carolina, U.S.A. The hypothesis tested was that increased growth following irrigation and fertilization would increase the rate at which size hierarchies develop. The hypothesis was investigated by comparing the coefficient of variation (CV) of stem volume over time and examining the stem volume relative growth rate (RGR) of trees of different initial size in control and irrigated + fertilized stands. Even though there were no statistically significant differences in CV among treatments, there was a tendency for increased CV over time in the control stands, whereas CV initially increased, then decreased, and became constant in the irrigated + fertilized plots. The lack of increase in CV in the irrigated + fertilized plots was explained by unusually low variation in RGR across tree size classes and negative relation of RGR and size. Therefore, the hypothesis that increased growth resulted in a more rapid development of size hierarchies was rejected. The high RGR of small trees in the irrigated + fertilized treatment could not be explained by differences in vertical distribution of needles compared with the control treatment. Small trees in the irrigated + fertilized plots were overtopped by neighboring trees to the same degree as small trees in the control plots.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".