Estimating the yield potential of short-rotation willow in Canada using the 3PG model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to predict short-rotation coppice (SRC) willow productivity for a given region would be very helpful for large-scale deployment of this crop. The objectives of this study were to calibrate and validate the 3PG model for two commonly used clones (SX64 and SX67) and to provide yield potential estimates for 16 sites across Canada. One dataset for each clone, including leaf area index (LAI) and stem biomass, was used for calibrating parameters controlling leaf and stem growth. All other datasets, coming from eight different willow plantations, were used for model validation. Model performance was good in predicting stem biomass for the SX64 (normalized mean error (NME) = –8%, normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) = 22%) and SX67 (NME = –3%, NRMSE = 16%) clones. Predictions were more scattered for LAI, with NRMSE close to 35% and 33% and NME of 1% and 8% for SX64 and SX67, respectively. The simulation results show that the greatest yields were obtained with the three-year rotation for the SX67 clone, whereas a two-year rotation seemed to be more appropriate for the SX64 clone. The simulation results also show that growing degree-days had a significant impact on yield potential, which varied from 10.5 to 16.5 t DM·ha−1 for SX64 and from 7.5 to 11.5 t DM·ha−1 for SX67.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".