Spacing and Fertilizer Application Method Influence Container Plant Growth and Runoff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of production practices on runoff from container nurseries was investigated in Spring 2003 (March to July) and Fall 2003 (August to January). Viburnum odoratissimum (Ker-Gawl.) liners were planted in 3.8-L containers with a 2 pine bark: 1 sand: 1 Canadian peat substrate and placed on 1.5 m 2 -platforms at one of two plant spacing densities: 16 or 32 plants/m 2 [spaced to 16 plants/m 2 after 13 weeks (spring) or 14 weeks (fall)]. Overhead sprinkler irrigation was applied daily (1 cm) and runoff collected weekly. Osmocote 18 N-2.6 P-10 K was surface-applied to each container (15 g) in the spring and surface-applied or incorporated in the fall. Cumulative runoff averaged 1240 L·m -1 ; in spring (19 weeks) and 1050 L·m -1 ; in fall (20 weeks), which represented 72% and 66% of applied irrigation plus rainfall, respectively. The lower density spacing resulted in a 19% increase in cumulative runoff in spring (1340 vs. 1130 L·m -1 ) but had no effect in fall (970 vs. 890 L·m -1 ). Weighted average EC wa of runoff decreased 10% (0.436 vs. 0.485 dS·m -1 ) and 12% (0.420 vs. 0.476 dS·m -1 ) with the lower density spacing in spring and fall, respectively. EC wa in fall was not affected by fertilizer method. Plant size index [(height + width)/2] was reduced 22% in both spring (38.7 vs. 49.7 cm) and fall (26.9 vs. 34.4 cm) when plants were grown at the lower density spacing throughout production. This reduction in plant size was attributed to container heat stress. Plant size was unaffected by fertilizer application method (fall) but fertilizer incorporation resulted in greener plants than surface-applied fertilizer (60 vs. 53 SPAD readings).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".