MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150913149 · doi:10.1139/x10-115

Relative bulk density as a measure of compaction and its influence on tree height

2010· article· en· W2150913149 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Yihai Zhao, Maja Kržić, Chuck Bulmer, Margaret Schmidt, Suzanne W. Simard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPinus contortaSoil compactionBulk densityForestryCompactionEnvironmental sciencePicea engelmanniiSoil carbonSoil scienceAgronomyGeographySoil waterBiologyGeologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil compaction often limits conifer regeneration on sites degraded by landings and roads, but inadequate understanding of the relationship between compaction and tree growth could lead to inappropriate soil conservation and rehabilitation efforts. We tested liquid and plastic limits, oxidizable organic matter, total carbon, particle size distribution, and iron and aluminum oxides on soil samples collected from five forest experiments in interior British Columbia. These data were used to estimate soil maximum bulk density (MBD) and relative bulk density (RBD); our objective was to relate RBD to tree growth. Height of interior Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca (Bessin) Franco) was limited when RBD was >0.72. For lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) and hybrid white spruce ( Picea glauca (Moench) Voss × Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm.), RBDs of 0.60–0.68 corresponded to maximum height, whereas RBDs of 0.78–0.87 appeared to limit height growth. The presence of surface organic material mitigated compaction and was often associated with lower RBD. Our results illustrate the usefulness of RBD to assess compaction and suggest that soil rehabilitation should be considered on disturbed sites where soil RBD is >0.80.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations50
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207