The Performance of Five Willow Cultivars under Different Pedoclimatic Conditions and Rotation Cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A plant’s genotype, their environment, and the interaction between them influence its growth and development. In this study, we investigated the effect of these factors on the growth and biomass yield of willows in short-rotation coppice (SRC) under different harvesting cycles (i.e., two- vs. three-year rotations) in Quebec (Canada). Five of the commercial willow cultivars most common in Quebec, (i.e., Salix × dasyclados Wimm. ‘SV1’, Salix viminalis L. ‘5027’, Salix miyabeana Seeman ‘SX61’, ‘SX64’ and ‘SX67’) were grown in five sites with different pedoclimatic conditions. Yield not only varied significantly according to site and cultivar, but a significant interaction between rotation and site was also detected. Cultivar ‘5027’ showed significantly lower annual biomass yield in both two-year (average 10.8 t ha−1 year−1) and three-year rotation (average 11.2 t ha−1 year−1) compared to other cultivars (15.2 t ha−1 year−1 and 14.6 t ha−1 year−1 in two- and three-year rotation, respectively). Biomass yield also varied significantly with rotation cycle, but the extent of the response depended upon the site. While in some sites the average productivity of all cultivars remained fairly constant under different rotations (i.e., 17.4 vs. 16 t ha−1 year−1 in two- and three-year rotation, respectively), in other cases, biomass yield was higher in the two- than in the three-year rotation or vice versa. Evidence suggests that soil physico-chemical properties are better predictors of willow SRC plantation performance than climate variables.
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".