Relative bulk density as a measure of compaction and its influence on tree height
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".