Willow production during 12 consecutive years—The effects of harvest rotation, planting density and cultivar on biomass yield
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Willow biomass produced in short rotation coppice systems can potentially be used as biomass feedstock in Europe, the United States and Canada. However, most researchers focus on data from the first harvest rotation only, whereas multiple rotations have been rarely investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of cultivar (5), planting density (12,000–96,000 cuttings/ha) and harvest rotation (annual, biennial, triennial) on willow biomass yields during 12 consecutive years in northern Poland. Every experimental factor and the interactions between factors significantly impacted willow yields. Biomass yield was highest in the triennial harvest rotation (13.3 Mg ha −1 year −1 ), 15.9% lower in the biennial rotation and 26.9% lower in the annual rotation. The highest average yield (14.6 Mg ha −1 year −1 ) was noted at a planting density of 24,000 cuttings/ha, and yields were 9.3%–46.0% lower at the remaining densities. Cultivar UWM 095 had the highest average yield (13.0 Mg ha −1 year −1 ), whereas the yield of the remaining cultivars was 4.6%–32.4% lower. During the 12‐year period, yields were higher after the first harvest in annual, biennial and triennial harvest rotations. This above implies that high biomass yields can be obtained after the first harvest rotation if willows are cultivated on fertile soils at higher planting density, well managed and coppiced after the first year. However, yields are unlikely to be higher in successive harvest rotations, and they can even be lower, but more stable than in the first harvest rotation.
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.
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 it