Do Reduced Tree Spacings Enhance Soil and Aboveground Carbon Storage? A Legume Tree Stand in Southeastern Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to describe the influence of different planting spacings in aboveground biomass and soil carbon stocks, in 7.5 years old Anadenanthera peregrina (L.) Speg. var. peregrina stands, hypothesizing that smaller spacings might enhance carbon storage. The stands are located in Espírito Santo, Brazil and were planted in 2011. Blocks were allocated in a randomized block design to evaluate three treatments: 3 m x 3 m, 4 m x 4 m and 5 m x 5 m tree spacings. Samples up to 100 cm were taken for carbon determination and soil bulk density. 10 trees were felled and their aboveground biomass measured. Soil and aboveground biomass C stocks were calculated. The aboveground biomass C stock did not change in different spacing. Soil C stock was not influenced by the spacings, with total C stock of 122.93, 106.09 and 97.08 Mg ha-1 for 3 m x 3 m, 4 m x 4 m and 5 m x 5 m, respectively. The intensification of carbon storage in smaller spacings was not confirmed. The study reveals inedited information about carbon storage in A. peregrina var. peregrina stands and demands new investigations regarding different soil characteristics. The species do have potential for carbon storage regardless of tree spacing.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".