Soil and lodgepole pine foliar responses to two fertilizer sulphur forms in the Sub-Boreal Spruce zone, central interior British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sulphur (S) fractions, total nitrogen (N) concentrations, and cumulative net S mineralization of forest floors and surface mineral soils (0-20 cm) were measured 13 years after an S-deficient lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia Engelm.) stand was fertilized (100 kg S·ha1 + 400 kg N·ha1) in 1990. Fertilizer treatments compared two S sources: elemental S (S0) and ammonium sulphate (AS). Total S and ester sulphate-S (SO4-S) concentrations and cumulative net S mineralization in forest floors were significantly higher in the S0 treatment than in the control and AS treatment. Except for a slight elevation of extractable SO4-S, such differences were absent in the mineral soils. Total S and SO4-S concentrations in current-year (2002) pine foliage from the S0 treatment were significantly higher than in foliage from the control and AS treatment, while foliar N concentrations indicated that all treatments had caused a return to N-deficiency. These results indicate that prolonged amelioration of S deficiencies in lodgepole pine stands in central interior British Columbia may be possible with single applications of S0.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".