Two-year field performance of lodgepole pine seedlings: Effects of container type, mycorrhizal fungal inoculants, and site preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interior lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) seedlings were grown in Styroblocks™, Copperblocks™, or AirBlocks™, and inoculated with Rhizopogon rubescens or Hebeloma longicaudum, or left as noninoculated controls. Seedlings were planted into different rooting environments in two separate locations, encompassing two separate experiments. In experiment 1, seedlings were planted into fully rehabilitated landings (ripped with burn-pile debris and topsoil incorporated), ripped landings, and unprepared cutblocks in the spring. In experiment 2, seedlings were planted in a cutblock in manually screefed (i.e., boot screefed) planting sites or undisturbed forest floor planting sites in the summer. Seedlings in the fully rehabilitated landings were 21% taller, had 45% larger diameters, and were more vigorous than seedlings in landings that were simply ripped; seedlings planted in the unprepared cutblock were taller, but with a smaller diameter, than those on the rehabilitated landings. Seedlings in screefed microsites grew significantly larger (5%) than seedlings planted directly in the forest floor. After 2 years in the field, the sizes of spring-planted, noninoculated seedlings, and seedlings inoculated with ectomycorrhizal fungi were not significantly different. Inoculated summer-planted seedlings were approximately 5% larger than non-inoculated control seedlings. Among the variables we manipulated, planting environment had the greatest influence on seedling growth.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".