Influence of Different Tillage Systems and Weed Treatments in the Establishment Year on the Final Biomass Production of Short Rotation Coppice Poplar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study the influence of three different tillage systems in combination with eight varying weed treatments applied within the establishment year and its effect on the final above ground leafless biomass production (after the third growing season) of short rotation coppice poplar is presented. The three tillage systems included variants with ploughing and harrowing, variants with cultivation and ley cropping and variants without tillage. Weed treatments included the application of different herbicides, but also more environmentally sound variants such as mulching and the use of mulch materials to avoid the use of herbicides. To estimate the influence on final biomass production, regression analysis was undertaken using DBH as the predictor variable. Based on 1056 DBH measurements the biomass production of the different variants was compared. The interactions of tillage system and weed treatment on biomass yield were found to be statistically significant. Between tillage systems the ploughing variant displayed a better overall performance than the cultivation with ley crop variant and the variant without any tillage. Differing weed treatments reveal greater success for the whole area application of herbicides than band application, both being better than the use of mulch materials. These results suggest that the right tillage system in combination with effective chemical weed control is the key to the successful establishment of Short rotation coppice (SRC) poplar plantation following the principles of an integrated weed management approach. Furthermore, ecological variants such as ploughing in combination with the use of mulch materials and mechanical vegetation control between the rows could be a solution to reduce dependence on chemical control. However, this comes at the expense of a considerable loss in yield.
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".