Age trends in the effectiveness of some ecosystem services provided by poplar cultivars in the Western Forest Steppe of Ukraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The article presents the results of a long-term study on an experimental plantation of four poplar cultivars (‘Canadian-Balsamic’, ‘Druzhba’, ‘Tronko’, and ‘Strilopodibna’) at 7, 9, and 15 years of age. The plantation was established near Ternopil, the city in western Ukraine. Under conditions of natural thinning, the average survival rate of the poplar cultivars decreased linearly (R 2 = 0.995) from 83.5% on a 7-year-old plantation to 32.5% on a 15-year-old plantation. The average stem wood stock of all poplar cultivars on the plantation increased over the 8-year period (from 7 to 15 years), rising from 108.3 to 134.5 m 3 ·ha −1 . However, the growth dynamics of individual cultivars varied. At 7 years of age, the Strilopodibna poplar exhibited slightly lower growth rates in both height and diameter than the other cultivars and had the smallest stem wood stock (93 m 3 ·ha −1 ). However, due to a lower natural tree loss rate, it ranked first in productivity by the age of 15, nearly doubling its stem wood stock to 171 m 3 ·ha −1 over the 8-year period. The study has also shown that all poplar cultivars on the experimental plantation have a high potential for generating various ecosystem services, including CO 2 sequestration, oxygen production, and energy biomass generation. However, the trends in both average annual values and current changes in the provision of these ecosystem services vary among cultivars. Similar to the trends observed in stem wood accumulation, the average annual volumes of ecosystem services for the poplar cultivar ‘Strilopodibna’ declined at a significantly lower rate than those of ‘Druzhba’, ‘Canadian-Balsamic’, and ‘Tronko’. At the same time, the current change in ecosystem service provision for ‘Strilopodibna’ at ages 9 and 15 remained positive and relatively high, whereas for the other cultivars, it was low and often negative. Based on these findings, the results of the study suggest that the optimal maturity age of the analyzed poplar cultivars, based on their maximum efficiency in ecosystem service generation, is less than 7 years.
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".