MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113008680 · doi:10.1139/x09-050

Integration of soil moisture, xylem water potential, and fall–spring herbicide treatments to achieve the maximum growth response in newly planted Douglas-fir seedlings

2009· article· en· W2113008680 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eric J. Dinger, Robin Rose

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeedlingHerbaceous plantAgronomyWater contentVegetation (pathology)XylemEnvironmental scienceCompetition (biology)MoistureSoil waterBiologyHorticultureEcologyChemistrySoil scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early in the establishment of Pacific Northwest Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) plantations, herbaceous vegetation can decrease seedling growth through competition for soil moisture during the dry summer months. This study was designed to statistically quantify soil moisture, seedling xylem water potential (Ψ), vegetation community, and seedling growth response to six herbicide treatment regimes commonly applied over the first 2 years of establishment. When compared with the control, soil moisture and seedling Ψ increased in response to reductions in competitive cover, allowing seedlings to extend productive growing time from 28 to 80 days. As a result, seedling volume growth increased from 56 cm 3 in the untreated control to greater than 250 cm 3 for the most intensive herbicide treatment regimes. Vegetation surveys revealed that treatment regimes had the potential to provide a disturbance, which could shift community composition from native to introduced species as the relationship decreased from 10:1 to 2:1. The most intense herbicide treatment regime reduced cover below 20%, retained soil moisture >30%, maintained predawn seedling Ψ above –1.0 MPa, and decreased height to diameter ratio below 50, increasing the likelihood of successful plantation establishment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207