Growth of Containerized Atlantic White Cedar Seedlings as Affected by Container Volume, Substrate, Fertilizer, and Irrigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Germination and growth of atlantic white cedar [ Chamaecyparis thyoides (L.) B.S.P.] was evaluated in response to four container volumes (98 to 530 cm 3 ), two substrates [North Carolina Forest Service (NCFS) container mix [3 canadian peat: 2 coarse vermiculite: 1.5 perlite (by volume), and 3 composted pine bark: 1 peat (by volume)], two controlled-release fertilizers [Osmocote 15N–4.0P–10.0K (15N–9P 2 O 5 –12K 2 O), 12- to 14-month southern formulation, with micros; and Polyon 18N–2.6P–10.0K (18N–6P 2 O 5 –12K 2 O) with micros, 9-month formulation], and three irrigation frequencies (2, 3, or 4 times daily). Although growth increased up to the maximum container volume (530 cm 3 ), the optimum for 1-year-old seedlings appeared to be 164 to 262 cm 3 . The higher peat content and water holding capacity of the NCFS substrate yielded better growth than 3 bark: 1 peat. Osmocote yielded larger and heavier plants than Polyon, probably owing to more available phosphorus in the former. Irrigation three times daily was optimum. Suitable manipulation of container volume, substrate, fertilizer, and irrigation should yield high quality containerized atlantic white cedar seedlings.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".