Quantifying the coarse-root biomass of intensively managed loblolly pine plantations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of the carbon accumulation during a forest rotation is in plant biomass and the forest floor. Most of the belowground biomass in older loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) forests is in coarse roots, and coarse roots persist longer after harvest than aboveground biomass and fine roots. The main objective was to assess the carbon accumulation in coarse roots of a loblolly pine plantation that was subjected to different levels of management intensity. Total belowground biomass ranged from 56.4 to 62.4 Mt·ha1and was not affected by treatment. Vegetation control and disking increased pine taproot biomass and decreased hardwood taproot biomass. Pines between tree coarse roots were unaffected by treatment, but hardwoods between tree coarse roots were significantly reduced by vegetation control. Necromass was substantially lower than between-tree biomass, indicating that decomposition of coarse-root biomass from the previous stand was rapid for between-tree coarse roots. Total aboveground biomass was increased by vegetation control, with the lowest production on the least intensively managed plots (180.2 Mt·ha1) and the highest production on the most intensively managed plots (247.3 Mt·ha1). Coarse-root biomass ranged from 19% to 24% of total biomass. Silvicultural practices increasing aboveground pine productivity did not increase total coarse-root biomass carbon because of the difference in root/shoot allocation between pine and hardwood species.
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 | 0.001 | 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".