Coppice growth responses of two North American willows in acidic clay soils on coal mine overburden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mosseler, A. and Major, J. E. 2014. Coppice growth responses of two North American willows in acidic clay soils on coal mine overburden. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 1269–1279. Acid-generating mine spoils with low pH are a major problem for revegetation and site reclamation. We compared growth responses of 15 genotypes from two widespread willow species, Salix discolor Muhl. (DIS) and S. eriocephala Michx. (ERI), native to eastern and central North America on two adjacent coal mine spoil sites that differed strongly in both pH (3.6 vs. 6.8) and soil texture. Despite significantly poorer growth responses for several coppice biomass traits on a highly acidic clay deposit compared with adjacent shale overburden, these willow clones demonstrated a surprising tolerance for extremely acidic soil conditions. Analysis of survival and growth uncovered genotype×environment interactions, indicating that both species and genotypic differences within species could be used to select better-adapted genotypes for extreme conditions. Most ERI and DIS clones grew comparatively better on the shale overburden site, but two of eight ERI clones and one of seven DIS clones grew significantly better on the acidic clay site, indicating the possibility for clonal selection for specific site adaptations within a species. Allometric relationships between coppice height and basal stem diameter were constant at both the species and site levels. However, there was a divergence of height and diameter in their relationship with green mass yields on the two different site types.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".