Ten-year growth response of 45-year old Pinus banksiana Lamb. to urea fertilization and low thinning / by Arthur Groot. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this investigation were 1) to examine \nthe duration and pattern of jack pine growth response to urea \nfertilization and low thinning, and 2) to examine methods commonly \nused in the measurement of fertilization and thinning trials in \njack pine. \nThe study area was located near Chapleau, Ontario in a \nfire-originated jack pine stand. The stand was treated at age 45 \nwith 336 kg urea-N/ha and a low thinning of 20 percent basal area \nin a 2 X 2 factorial design with four replicates. \nAt stand age 55, 80 trees were felled for stem analysis, \nrepresenting 5 tree diameter classes within each stand treatment. \nVolume increment, height increment, measures of form, and local \nvolume equations were determined from the stem analysis data. The \nlocal volume equations were applied to diameter frequency distributions \nat stand ages 45, 50, and 55 to calculate stand volumes at \nthese ages. A growth model was developed to characterize the \nannual volume growth of individual trees. The model related the \nannual volume growth of an individual tree to its volume, and the \nstand volume. Aggregation of the annual volume increments of individual \ntrees allowed annual stand volume increments to be estimated. \nIndividual trees responded to fertilization with greater \n10-year volume increment and merchantable height increment. On a \nstand basis, fertilization resulted in about 20 m[superscript 3] ha[superscript 2] of additional gross volume growth during the ten-year response period, \nThis volume growth response was greatest in the third and fourth \nyears after fertilization. Fertilization appeared to have both a \ndirect effect and an indirect effect. Tlie direct effect was \ngrowth response to the improved nitrogen status, and this effect \nceased 10 years after treatment. The indirect effect was greater \ngrowth due to larger average tree size, and this effect was still \nevident 10 years after treatment. Thinning had little effect beyond \nsalvaging potential mortality. \nAn examination of methods commonly used to estimate growth \nresponses to silvicultural treatments was made. The results suggest \nthat it is necessary to use treatment-specific and age-specific \nlocal volume equations to accurately measure growth response \nto fertilization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".