Regeneration of White Spruce Under Aspen Canopies: Seeding, Planting, and Site Preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigated the establishment and survival of naturally and artificially seeded white spruce (Picea glauca), as well as three sizes of planted white spruce stock, on different types of scarification beneath mature aspen (Populus tremuloides) in northern Alberta. White spruce seed rain, natural and hand-seeded regeneration establishment and survival, and understory vegetation response were monitored for 4 yr on scarified strips (light blading, heavy blading, and ridged) and on undisturbed controls. Despite a heavy seed rain in 1993, seedling establishment on control plots was almost nil. On scarified plots, the number of seeds required to produce a live seedling after 3 growing seasons ranged from 15 to 37 and up to 68 in one site. Most mortality occurred during the summer. Germination rate on the hand-seeded plots ranged from 19 to 28% on the scarified strips. There was no significant difference in survival from seed (15%) after three growing seasons among the three scarification treatments. Survival of planted stock was 98% on scarified strips and 96% on control strips. Diameter growth was least on control plots but was not significantly different among the scarified treatments. In contrast, height increment was greatest on the light blading treatment and differed little among the other two treatments and control. These results suggest that spruce regeneration in aspen forests can be promoted by scarification or underplanting. West. J. Appl. For. 15(4):177–182.
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".