Pyroligneous extract for production of Pinus taeda L. seedlings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Production of well-developed Pinus taeda L. seedlings is essential for satisfactory development of planted forests. Biostimulant compounds, such as pyroligneous extract, have shown great potential to improve plant growth of some agronomic crops, and therefore should be tested in forestry species as well. Hence, the goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of pyroligneous extract on P. taeda seedlings under nursery conditions. The experiment was carried out under completely randomized conditions, studying three concentrations of extract added to the substrate. Plant height and diameter were measured monthly, and data regarding plant biomass and development were collected after six months. Pyroligneous extract had no effect on seed germination. Plant height was improved in 12.5% only at 30 days after sowing with 2.5% extract added to the substrate. Fresh mass or volume of roots, as well as shoot mass, were not affected by pyroligneous extract. However, root dry mass was increased from 0.258g to 0.335g with 1.0% pyroligneous extract. Root production by Pinus taeda seedlings is significantly improved by adding 1.0% pyroligneous extract in the substrate before sowing. Therefore, addition of 1.0% pyroligneous extract to substrate is recommended to improve root development of Pinus taeda seedlings at nursery.
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) | 0.001 | 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".