Effects of ontogeny and soil nutrient supply on production, allocation, and leaf area efficiency in loblolly and slash pine stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of ontogeny and soil nutrient supply on aboveground biomass accumulation, allocation, and stemwood growth efficiency of loblolly (Pinus taeda L.) and slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm. var. elliottii) were investigated in north-central Florida over 16 years using a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experiment (species, fertilization, weed control). Aboveground biomass growth responses to the combined fertilizer and weed control treatments (FW) averaged ~2- and 2.8-fold for slash and loblolly pine, respectively. In the same treatment, annual needlefall (NF) production for slash pine approached a "steady state" of 6 Mg·ha-1 at ages 8-14 years, while loblolly pine NF production peaked at 7 Mg·ha-1 at age 10 years, and then declined 17% following curtailment of the fertilizer treatment. Periodic stemwood biomass increment (PAI) for the FW treatment for both species culminated at about 15 Mg·ha-1·year-1 at age 8 years and then declined rapidly (~275%) to <4 Mg·ha-1·year-1 at 15 years; reductions for the untreated control were considerably slower. The progressive decline in PAI following peak leaf area development was closely associated with a decrease in stemwood production per unit leaf area (growth efficiency). A unit increase in leaf area index in the 7- to 9-year-old stands produced about 3.0 and 3.1 times more stemwood biomass per year than in the 14- to 16-year-old stands for loblolly and slash pine, respectively.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".