Effects of nitrogen and boron fertilization on foliar boron nutrition and growth in two different lodgepole pine ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 9-year effects of nitrogen (N) and boron (B) fertilization on the growth and foliar B nutrition of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) were evaluated in two different ecosystems in the interior of British Columbia. When added alone, B had no effect on basal area or height increment. However, combined applications of N and B were superior to N alone in stimulating height development at both study sites. At one site, fertilization with N, alone and in combination with sulphur (S), resulted in a significant amount of top dieback symptomatic of severe B deficiency. No visible deficiency symptoms were observed when B was combined with N or N + S. Boron fertilization significantly increased foliar B concentrations at both study sites, and higher foliar B levels were maintained throughout the 9-year study period. Results suggest that significant visible symptoms of B deficiency in lodgepole pine are unlikely to occur at foliar levels >6 mg/kg, although subacute B deficiency may suppress height development in the absence of deficiency symptoms. When combined with nitrogenous fertilizers, B applications of 1.53.0 kg/ha are likely sufficient to achieve, and maintain, favourable B status and healthy growth of trees over a prolonged period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".