Effects of aspect and type of competition on the early performance of <i>Nothofagus dombeyi</i> and <i>Nothofagus nervosa</i> in a mixed plantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Andes of Chile, two valuable Nothofagus tree species coexist (Nothofagus dombeyi (Mirb.) Oerst. and Nothofagus nervosa (Phil.) Krasser). They could provide an opportunity for mixed plantations because of their ecological differences. In a mixed plantation with a checkerboard design on a good site where the two species naturally coexist, we evaluated their performance according to aspect and type of competition. Nothofagus dombeyi had a greater survivorship (90% vs. 65%) and growth (twice in diameter and 20% greater in height). Forking was significantly lower in N. nervosa (23% vs. 70%). Aspect did not significantly affect the performance of N. dombeyi. The north aspect had a significant negative effect on survivorship of N. nervosa, but aspect did not significantly affect growth or forking of this species. The aspect – type of competition interaction was only significant for N. nervosa in diameter and marginally significant in height. The checkerboard design allowed for a clear separation of interspecific and intraspecific competition in this mixed plantation. Interspecific competition favored growth of N. nervosa on the north aspect (facilitation) and was detrimental to N. nervosa on the south aspect (competition). These results have a direct application when planting mixtures of species of complementary ecological characteristics that can increase the value of the plantation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".