Why does oriental arborvitae grow better when mixed with black locust: Insight on nutrient cycling?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To identify why tree growth differs by afforestation type is a matter of prime concern in forestry. A study was conducted to determine why oriental arborvitae (Platycladus orientalis) grows better in the presence of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) than in monoculture. Different types of stands (i.e., monocultures and mixture of black locust and oriental arborvitae, and native grassland as a control) were selected in the Loess Plateau, China. The height and diameter at breast height of each tree species were measured, and soil, shoot, and root samples were sampled. The arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) attributes, shoot and root nutrient status, height and diameter of black locust were not influenced by the presence of oriental arborvitae. For oriental arborvitae, however, growing in mixture increased height and diameter and reduced shoot Mn, Ca, and Mg contents,AMfungal spore density, and colonization rate. Major changes in soil properties also occurred, primarily in soil water,NO3‐N, and available K levels and in soil enzyme activity. The increase in soil water, N, and K availability in the presence of black locust stimulated oriental arborvitae growth, and black locust in the mixed stand seems to suppress the development ofAMsymbiosis in oriental arborvitae roots, especially the production ofAMfungal spores and vesicles, through improving soil water and N levels, thus freeing up carbon to fuel plant growth. Overall, the presence of black locust favored oriental arborvitae growth directly by improving soil water and fertility and indirectly by repressingAMsymbiosis in oriental arborvitae roots.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".