Ten-year effect of dolomitic lime on the nutrition, crown vigor, and growth of sugar maple
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a base-poor northern hardwood stand in Quebec, subjected to high acid deposition, sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) nutrition, growth, and crown vigor were evaluated 10 years after application of 0–50 t·ha–1 of CaMg(CO3)2 in 1994. One decade after treatment, foliar calcium and magnesium concentrations of sugar maple were still higher for treated than for control trees. The analysis of foliar nutrient indices showed that liming improved the nutrition of nitrogen and calcium, but caused imbalance of phosphorus, potassium, and magnesium. In 2004, crown dieback was much lower for limed trees (0.5%–4.5%) as compared to unlimed trees (23.7%). When compared with crown dieback before treatment, dieback of limed trees generally had decreased by 2004, while dieback of untreated maple trees increased over the 1994–2004 period. In 2004, basal area increment for limed trees was nearly double that of unlimed trees. However, no difference was detectable among trees limed at different rates. Midterm efficacy of liming in this study was demonstrated by the improvement of sugar maple calcium nutrition, crown vigor, and stem growth 10 years following treatment. This confirms the potential of liming to limit damage caused by acid deposition in base-poor and declining northern hardwood stands.
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 | 0.000 | 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".