Comparing spacings of Anadenanthera peregrina (L.) Speg stand: response in biomass and carbon stock above and below ground
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forests play a crucial role in the global carbon cycle. Among the factors that can affect carbon stocks in forest stands, planting spacing stands out. This study verified the effect of spacing on biomass and carbon stock in a stand of Anadenanthera peregrina (L.) Speg at 56 months of age. They were planted with 3 x 2 m, 3 x 3 m, 4 x 3 m, 4 x 4 m and 5 x 5 m spacings. The biomass of the above-ground compartments (stem, branches, leaves and bark) and root biomass was quantified, totalling 16.42 and 6.68 Mg ha-1, respectively. The largest amount of biomass and carbon stock occurred in the denser spacings. Total biomass was twice as large at 3 x 2 m spacing compared to 5 x 5 m spacing. The root biomass represented 40.93% of the total biomass. The order of participation of the components in the total aboveground biomass was branches (44.99%), stem (40.77%), leaves (13.99%) and bark (4.90%). The denser spacings (3 x 2 m and 3 x 3 m) showed higher values of biomass and carbon stock than the wide spacings (4 x 3 m, 4 x 4 m and 5 x 5 m). There was no effect of planting spacing on carbon stock in necromass and soil.
 Keywords: biomass, carbon sequestration, silviculture.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it