Comparing growth and fine root distribution in monocultures and mixed plantations of hybrid poplar and spruce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disease prevention, biodiversity, productivity improvement and ecological considerations are all factors that contribute to increasing interest in mixed plantations. The objective of this study was to evaluate early growth and productivity of two hybrid poplar clones, P. balsamifera x trichocarpa （PBT） and P. maximowiczii x balsamifera （PMB）, one improved family of Norway spruce （Picea glauca （PA）） and one improved family of white spruce （Picea abies （PG）） growing under different spacings in monocultures and mixed plots. The plantations were established in 2003 in Abitibi-Temiscamingue, Quebec, Canada, in a split plot design with spacing as the whole plot factor （1 × 1 m, 3 × 3 m and 5 × 5 m） and mixture treatments as subplot factor （pure： PBT, PMB, PA and PG, and 1：1 mixture PBT：PA, PBT：PG, PMB：PA and PMB：PG）. Results showed a beneficial effect of the hybrid poplar-spruce mixture on diameter growth for hybrid poplar clones, but not for the 5 × 5 m spacing because of the relatively young age of the plantations. Diameter growth of the spruces decreased in mixed plantings in the 1 × 1 m, while their height growth increased, resulting in similar aboveground biomass per tree across treatments. Because of the large size differences between spruces and poplars, aboveground biomass in the mixed plantings was generally less than that in pure poplar plots. Leaf nitrogen concentration for the two spruce families and hybrid poplar clone PMB was greater in mixed plots than in monocultures, while leaf nitrogen concentration of clone PBT was similar among mixture treatments. Because of its faster growth rate and greater soil resources demands, clone PMB was the only one showing an increase in leaf N with increased spacing between trees. Fine roots density was greater for both hybrid poplars than spruces. The vertical distribution of fine roots was insensitive to mixture treatment.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".