Effects of planting quality, depth and medium on growth and survival of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) in south central British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tree-planting quality, depth, and medium can significantly affect seedling growth, vigour, and survival in the Very Dry, Cool Montane spruce Biogeoclimatic subsone (MSxk). In this study, lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) seedlings were planted in seven different treatment units to test for difference in growth and mortality. Trees were planted in F-layer, mineral soil, and poor medium, with damaged plugs, J-rooted, deep, and shallow treatments to test for these differences. All trees were measured two growing seasons after planting for nursery year growth (year 1 growth), second year growth, third year growth, caliper and mortality. Trees planted in the F-layer and mineral soil had significantly greater caliper than shallow planted seedlings which correlated strongly with third year growth, and survival. Third year seedling growth was significantly greater in F-layer, mineral screefs, and deep treatments. Mortality was greatest in shallow, poor medium and damaged root treatments and was likely caused by moisture deficit and drought. Total height differences were not found to be significantly different between treatments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".