Coppicing ability of 20 <i>Eucalyptus</i> species grown at two high-altitude sites in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1980s, Eucalyptus macarthurii and E. nitens were planted in the colder, higher altitude areas of South Africa to meet the increased demand for pulpwood. To find possible alternatives, six site × species interaction trials were planted in 19901991. Based on volume performance and pulping properties, E. badjensis, E. benthamii, E. oreades, E. nobilis, E. smithii, and E. fraxinoides were identified as having good commercial potential. Although the performance of the parent crop is important, the ability to coppice is advantageous because of lower reestablishment costs. To determine this, the ability for these species to coppice was assessed at 10 months after felling at two of the trial sites with widely different growing conditions (Broadholms in Mpumalanga province and Draycott in KwaZulu-Natal province). More than 80% of the living stumps of E. benthamii, E. smithii, E. quadrangulata, E. macarthurii, E. badjensis, E. dunnii, E. cypellocarpa, E. saligna, and E. elata had coppiced at both sites. At Draycott, an exposed, dry site, both E. smithii and E. benthamii could be considered as potential alternative species to E. nitens, because besides having good volume, both species coppiced well. At Broadholms, a more protected and slightly wetter site, the significantly better volume of E. fraxinoides (which did not coppice well) when compared with the other species would mean that a substantial saving in reestablishment costs via coppice regeneration would have to be made before one could consider this method of reestablishment.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".