Effects of Sitka alder on the growth and foliar nutrition of young lodgepole pine in the central interior of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 6-year effects of differing levels of Sitka alder (Alnus viridus spp. sinuata (Regel) Á. Löve & D. Löve) retention (0, 500, 1000, and 2000 clumps/ha) on the development of retained alder and on the growth and foliar nutrition of 7-year-old naturally regenerated lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) were evaluated in a sub-boreal ecosystem in the central interior of British Columbia. Alder development was inversely related to alder retention density, with the largest height and crown width increments occurring at the lowest alder densities. Low to moderate levels of alder cover did not significantly inhibit the diameter or height growth of lodgepole pine. Even under high alder cover, growth was not reduced until alder cover exceeded 45%. Over the 6-year response period, lodgepole pine diameter and height increments under high alder cover were reduced by 10% and 12%, respectively, relative to the no-alder treatment. The effect of alder density on lodgepole pine foliar N was strongly linear, with the highest N levels measured in the high alder retention treatment. However, the positive impact of alder retention on foliar N resulted in probable imbalance of N relative to S and possibly P and K. Unless alleviated, nutritional imbalances may preclude reliable assessment of the competitive effects (i.e., light and soil resources) of alder density, if any, on lodgepole pine growth.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".