Maximum growth potential in loblolly pine: results from a 47-year-old spacing study in Hawaii
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growth, allocation to woody root biomass, wood properties, leaf physiology, and shoot morphology were examined in a 47-year-old loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda L.) density trial located in Maui, Hawaii, to determine if stands continued to carry the high density, basal area, and volume reported at younger ages and to identify potential factors controlling expression of maximum growth potential. Basal area and volume were similar among spacings (square: 1.8, 2.4, 3.0, and 3.7 m) and averaged 93 m 2 ·ha –1 and 1076 m 3 ·ha –1 , respectively, and were double the maxima reported for loblolly pine in its native range. Spacing had a significant influence on density, quadratic mean diameter, and height. Ring-specific gravity and percent latewood were similar among spacing treatments but values were high compared to mainland stands. Leaf light-saturated net photosynthesis, dark respiration, stomatal conductance, and quantum yield were comparable with values reported for loblolly pine in its native range. Foliar calcium concentrations, specific leaf area, and flush number were high in the Hawaii study. Higher carrying capacity in Hawaii may be related to a more favorable climate conducive to year-round leaf carbon gain, high nutrient availability, increased flushing, and less allocation to belowground mass.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".