Initial Growth of Irrigated Hybrid Poplar Decreased by Ground Covers
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 Four ground covers were compared with bare soil for their effects on the growth of irrigated poplar trees from 1997 through 1999 at the Malheur Experiment Station near Ontario, OR. Stem cuttings of hybrid poplar (Populus deltoides × P.nigra , clone ‘OP-367’) were planted in April 1997 at a 14 × 14-ft spacing. Ground cover treatments consisted of (1) bare soil maintained with a preplant herbicide and cultivations, (2) mowed weeds, (3) wheat (Triticum aestivum) between tree rows, (4) alfalfa (Medicago sativa) between tree rows, and (5) squash (Cucurbita maxima) between tree rows. The field was irrigated uniformly using micro sprinklers along the tree rows. Wood volume at the end of September in 1997 and 1998 was significantly greater for the bare soil than any ground cover. By the end of September 1998, wood volume in bare soil plots was more than 100% greater than in mowed weed plots, and almost 50% greater than in squash plots. During the third growing season, the incremental growth of wood volume was similar among the bare soil treatment, mowed weeds, and the plots that had previously been planted to squash but remained bare in the third year due to closure of the tree canopy. Without consideration of the economic value of cover crops, results suggest that, in eastern Oregon, poplar wood volume during the first three years is the greatest when the ground is kept bare.West.J. Appl. For. 17(2):61–65.
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