Effects of cutting size on the growth and wood property traits of short-rotation coppice willows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short-rotation coppice willows, which are commonly propagated with cuttings, are promising bioenergy resource crops. In this study, a field trial with a completely randomized block design was carried out with 787 clones from three full-sib pedigrees involving two shrub willow species. A total of 7083 cuttings were planted in the field, and the mass of each cutting was recorded correspondingly. The mortality rate, growth traits, and wood property traits of each cutting-propagated plant were measured throughout a complete growing season. The obtained data showed that heavier cuttings produced shoots with lower mortality rate, higher height, thicker ground diameter, and larger biomass production than lighter cuttings. The cutting mass significantly improved plant performance, especially at the early developmental stages. However, the cutting mass had no effect on the basic density and the main chemical composition (i.e., cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin) of willow wood. This study provided essential information for improving the establishment of short-rotation coppice willow plantations.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".