Wood energy quality of <i>Eucalyptus</i> spp. clones established under different soil types in the Brazilian Cerrado
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evaluation of wood energy quality of Eucalyptus clones planted in different edaphoclimatic conditions is fundamental to promote the sustainable expansion of energy forests to traditionally non-forest regions. This study aimed to evaluate the wood energy characteristics (proximate analysis, elemental analysis, higher heating value, basic and energy densities) from five Eucalyptus spp. clones planted in Latosol and Haplic Plinthosol soils in the Brazilian Cerrado (Savannah), considered a traditionally non-forest region. The wood basic and energetic densities are influenced by genotype (clone) but not influenced by the soil type (site). The higher heating value and the proximate analysis showed a significant effect of interaction between clone and soil type. Thus, for these wood energy variables, the clones behave differently depending on the growing location (soil type). Our results indicate that the clone with Eucalyptus cloeziana genes has the greatest energy potential because of the best wood quality: low ash (0.11%–0.09%), nitrogen contents (0.24%–0.31%), higher basic density (490.60–487.22 kg·m−1), and energy density (9720.5–9589.1 MJ·m−1), for soil types Latosol and Plinthosol.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".