Effects of different planting configurations and clones on biomass and carbon storage of a 12-year-old poplar ecosystem in southern China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this study was to compare the effects of two densities (278 stems·ha−1 with two spacings of 6 m × 6 m or 4.5 m × 8 m, 400 stems·ha−1 with two spacings of 5 m × 5 m or 3 m × 8 m) and three poplar clones (NL95, NL895, and NL797) on productivity and carbon (C) sequestration of poplar ecosystems. The results showed that planting density significantly affected the biomass of a single tree. The mean tree biomass of clone NL95 was higher in all spacings than that of the other clones, with a significant difference for the 6 m × 6 m spacing. The biomass of poplar trees ranged from 78.9 to 110.3 Mg·ha−1, with the highest tree biomass observed in the square configuration. Soil C concentration (0–100 cm) increased after 12 years of management. Soil C storage ranged from 138.1 to 164.3 Mg C·ha−1, and the highest soil C storage was in the NL797 poplar plantation with 6 m × 6 m spacing. Our results suggested that clones NL95 and NL797 should be chosen for planting, with a planting density of 278 stems·ha−1 and spacing of 6 m × 6 m.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".