Stand growth responses after fertilization for thinned lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and spruce in forests of interior British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to quantify growth responses of three major commercial conifer species (lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Douglas ex Loudon var. latifolia Engelm. ex S. Watson), interior Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco var. glauca (Beissn.) Franco), and spruce (white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) and hybrid spruce (Picea engelmannii Parry ex. Engelm. × Picea glauca (Moench) Voss × Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carrière))) to various fertilizer blends in interior British Columbia, Canada. Over 25 years, growth-response data were repeatedly collected across 46 installations. The fertilizer blends were classified into three groups: nitrogen only; nitrogen and sulfur combined; and nitrogen, sulfur, and boron combined. The growth responses for stand volume, basal area, and top height were calculated through absolute and relative growth rate ratios relative to a controlled group. Fertilizer blend, inverse years since fertilization, site index, stand density at fertilization, and their interactions with the fertilizer blend were used as explanatory variables. The magnitude and significance of volume and basal area growth responses to fertilization differed by species, fertilizer-blend groups, and stand-condition variables (i.e., site index and stand density). In contrast, the response in top height growth did not differ among fertilization blends, with the exception of the nitrogen and sulfur fertilizer subgroup for lodgepole pine. The models developed in this study will be incorporated into the current growth and yield fertilization module (i.e., Table Interpolation Program for Stand Yields (TIPSY)), thereby supporting guidance of fertilization applications in interior forests in British Columbia.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".