MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7092359013 · doi:10.26108/cryw-y150

An investigation of selection cutting as a viable alternative to clear-cutting practices in Nova Scotia's spruce and fir forests

2000· article· en· W7092359013 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueAcadiaU-DEV · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueForest Management and Policy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNova scotiaSustainabilitySelection (genetic algorithm)Nova (rocket)Forest managementField (mathematics)Native forest

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Forestry in the province of Nova Scotia has been dominated by clear- cutting for the past several years. Only recently, as forests of harvest potential have become scarce and diminishing returns have become evident for Nova Scotia, has concern been expressed as to the sustainability of this practice and the need for alternatives. Using the three concepts of sustainability; economics, community, and environment, this thesis attempts to contrast selection cutting and clear-cutting, with a concentration on the Acadian spruce and fir forests of the province of Nova Scotia. A Sustainability Prediction Model and a Sustainability Measures Model are presented to help classify practices in terms of sustainability. These practices are then loosely classified according to Kerry Turner's (expanded by Glyn Bissix) sustainability model. In addressing these three sustainability concepts, a combination of literature reviews from industry, government, environmentalists, and others, past experimental research, field work, along with careful interpolation and prediction have been used to construct a powerful case in favour of selection cutting as a viable, sustainable alternative to clear-cutting in Nova Scotia Acadian spruce and fir forests. Economic data has been reviewed for both practices in the province. Other measures to increase value derived from harvesting to meet demand such as log sorting, expansion of the value-added industry, certification, etc. are also discussed. The impact on communities in terms of employment, values, tourism, aesthetics, recreation, etc, has been established through research of past studies and personal contacts. The ecological impact of both practices was investigated through literature, and past experimentation. Using case study sites, and the general information of impacts applicable to the province, both practices were classified using Bissix's extended version of Turner's Sustainability Classifications. Finally, predictions were made about the sustainability of Nova Scotia forests and the forestry industry following these two practices using the Sustainability Prediction Model and a means of testing these predictions suggested. The main conclusions based on this thesis suggest selection cutting to be a definite possibility to alleviate many of the critical concerns associated with clear- cutting as our main forestry practice. Economically profits may drop slightly, but are much more evenly distributed and will continue to generate revenue into the future. Ecologically much less damage in done to habitat and feeding sources. In terms of community a greater, more diverse skill-orientated employment base opens up allowing for more opportunities for a diverse local population with much more longevity in terms of job stability. Selection cutting also allows for a more multiple-use approach to forest management, including recreation, tourism, and harvesting forest products other than timber. Overall, selection cutting was predicted to be of strong sustainability with clear-cutting predicted to be in the weak to exploitive range. This conclusion was further substantiated using Turner's Sustainability Classifications with the expansion to this system made by Glyn Bissix. Using this classification, clear-cutting was determined to be a weak to very weak sustainable practise. Selection cutting was determined to be a strong sustainable practise.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,030
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,297
Écart entre enseignants0,278 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2000
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAcadiaU-DEVMême sujetForest Management and PolicyTravaux en français237 207