A nutrient-based sustainability assessment of purpose-grown poplar and switchgrass biomass production systems established on marginal lands in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sustainability of purpose-grown biomass production on marginal lands in Canada is uncertain. In this study, an assessment of biomass yield and sustainability was performed for two poplar clones (Poplus deltoides × P. nigra, DN-34—PDN, and P. nigra × P. maximowiczii, NM-6—PNM) and two switchgrass cultivars (Panicum virgatum ‘Cave-in-Rock’—SGC, and P. virgatum ‘Nebraska’—SGN) on three marginal lands in Guelph (ON), Kemptville (ON), and Nappan (NS) in Canada. The differences in stem biomass across sites were not significant; however, differences in stem biomass among plants were statistically significant between poplar and switchgrass (p < 0.0001) and between poplar clones (p < 0.0001). The 2-yr stem biomass yield in PNM (15.27 ± 1.28 t ha−1) was significantly higher than those in PDN (7.02 ± 0.54 t ha−1), SGC (2.57 ± 0.28 t ha−1), and SGN (1.45 ± 0.22 t ha−1). Two sustainability indices based on macronutrients (MBSI) and nitrogen (NBSI), were developed to assess sustainability. Both indices show that the biomass production system of high-yielding poplar clone PNM depicts nutrient loss and may require external nutrient inputs via fertilization during the establishment phase. Higher index values for switchgrass SGC (1.47 ± 0.22, 1.11 ± 0.15) and SGN (1.37 ± 0.16, 1.17 ± 0.12) for MBSI and NBSI, respectively, indicate that despite low stem biomass yields, switchgrass biomass production is sustainable. These findings suggest that, from a nutrient perspective, sustainable biomass production systems can be established on marginal lands in Canada; however, there is a trade-off between high yield and long-term sustainability in purpose-grown biomass production systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".