Seasonal changes in soil and tissue nutrition in balsam fir and influence on postharvest needle abscission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postharvest needle abscission in balsam fir varies based on time of harvest, but little is known about the effect of soil and tree nutrition on postharvest needle abscission. From April to November, 18 balsam fir samples were obtained each month and evaluated for postharvest needle abscission characteristics. Soil samples were collected simultaneously and evaluated for moisture, pH, organic matter, cation exchange capacity, and mineral nutrition. Needle tissue samples were also evaluated for mineral nutrition. Many parameters were found to vary based on month throughout the study, but not all were associated with needle abscission. Soil organic matter, cation exchange capacity, Ca, and Mn all had a significant (P < .01) positive relationship with needle retention; soil Al had a significant (P < .01) negative relationship with needle retention. Needle N, Ca, and Fe were also associated with needle abscission. The strongest positive relationship was found between needle Ca and needle retention (R2 > .50), suggesting that higher concentrations of tissue Ca were linked to superior needle retention in balsam fir. Overall, this study provides evidence that changes to soil management, such as the inclusion of organic matter and certain minerals, may improve needle retention in balsam fir.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".