Absolute and relative changes in tree growth rates and changes to the stand diameter distribution of <i>Pinus taeda</i> as a result of midrotation fertilizer applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Silvicultural treatments have the potential to change the diameter distribution of a stand, which can alter the final product mix of the stand. Growth and yield models need to account for these changes in the diameter distribution to assess the economic viability of the silvicultural operations. We investigated how the diameter distribution of Pinus taeda L. stands changes as a result of midrotation fertilization. Data from 43 installations of a nitrogen and phosphorus midrotation fertilizer trial series established in the southeastern United States were used in the study. The results indicated that both the absolute growth response and the relative growth response of individual trees were greater among the larger trees. A three-parameter Weibull distribution fitted at each study site was used to investigate how the parameters of the distribution changed with time and treatment. The location and scale parameters of the Weibull distribution were both affected by fertilization. Stand variables, such as site index, age, stand density, and mean diameter at time of fertilization, also affected the location and scale parameters. The shape parameter was not affected by any of the treatments in this study.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".