Growth and physiology of loblolly pine in response to long-term resource management: defining growth potential in the southern United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leaf physiology and stem growth were assessed in loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda L.) in response to 10 to 11 years of treatment with weed control (W), weed control plus irrigation (WI), weed control plus irrigation and fertigation (WIF), or weed control plus irrigation, fertigation, and pest control (WIFP) to determine whether increased resource availability can push productivity of loblolly pine closer to its biological growth potential expressed in favorable, exotic environments. Maximum basal area and stem biomass were 41 m 2 ·ha –1 and 172 Mg·ha –1 , respectively, in response to fertigation. Stemwood biomass production was positively and linearly related to basal area. Belowground woody biomass was highest in the WIF and WIFP treatments and averaged 50 Mg·ha –1 , but the W and WI treatments exploited a greater area of soil with low-density coarse roots. Fertigation increased foliar nitrogen concentration and foliage biomass, but treatment had no effect on leaf physiological parameters or growth efficiency. Comparison with growth rates reported for loblolly pine in Hawaii revealed that loblolly pine grown in its native range can produce the high yields observed in exotic environments when stands are below maximum carrying capacity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".