Soil compaction and water content effects on lodgepole pine seedling growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased mechanization during timber harvesting activities has led to concerns that compaction may negatively affect the long-term productivity of soil. A greenhouse study was carried out to determine the effects of soil compaction under three levels of soil water content. Mineral soil was collected from a landing in central British Columbia, Canada and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) seedlings were grown in pots for 12 weeks. Pots were compacted to densities that corresponded to 67, 72 and 76 % of the Proctor maximum bulk density (1798 kg m-3) for the soil. Volumetric water contents of 0.10-0.15, 0.20-0.30 and 0.30-0.35 cm3cm-3 were maintained by weighing the pots, determining the gravimetric water content and adding the required water. Compaction only had an effect on seedling growth at low water content. Diameter growth and total shoot biomass were significantly smaller for 76 % compaction compared to 67 % compaction. At low water content, 76 % and 72 % compaction caused decreases in new root biomass and 76 % compaction increased shoot macronutrient concentrations. The findings of this study imply that, for the compaction levels observed, water content had a greater impact on seedling growth than compaction.
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".