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 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) | 0.000 | 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".