MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162734693 · doi:10.1139/x10-123

Effects of repeated fertilization in a young spruce stand in central British Columbia

2010· article· en· W2162734693 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
R. P. Brockley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman fertilizationBorealTaigaNutrientAnimal sciencePinus <genus>Basal areaBlack spruceBiologySilvicultureStand developmentBotanyAgronomyHorticultureEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustained growth responses and large reductions in rotation length can be achieved by repeatedly fertilizing young boreal forests. This paper reports the effects of different regimes and frequencies of fertilization on the foliar nutrition and growth of 10-year-old sub-boreal white spruce ( Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) in central British Columbia. Mean stand volume in treatment plots fertilized twice (at 6-year intervals) with N and B (totaling 400 kg N/ha and 3 kg B/ha) was 20 m3/ha (75%) greater than in the unfertilized control at year 12. Significantly larger stand volume gains (34 m3/ha, 128%) were obtained when S (totaling 100 kg S/ha) was added to this treatment. The inclusion of other nutrients (P, K, and Mg) with N, S, and B did not result in further incremental growth gains. When combined with other nutrients, yearly applications of 100–200 kg N/ha (totaling 1600 kg N/ha) produced 74 m3/ha (277%) more volume compared with the unfertilized stand at year 12. The large effects of fertilization on stand growth were accompanied by large increases in leaf area. Results indicate that repeated fertilization of young sub-boreal spruce forests may offer an excellent opportunity to increase fibre yield and reduce rotation length.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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