Effect<i>s</i>of biomass harvest intensity and soil disturbance on jack pine stand productivity: 15-year results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rising demands for forest biomass have raised concerns that the increased removal of organic residues and harvest impacts may reduce longer term site productivity. Replicated field experiments examining the effects of stem-only harvest with disc trenching (SOT), whole-tree harvest with (WTT) and without (WT) disc trenching, whole-tree harvest with forest-floor removal by blading (WTB), and blading followed by compaction (WTBC) were installed on nine sandy jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) sites in northern Ontario. At year 5, planted-tree diameters, dominant tree heights (HD), and stand aboveground biomass (jPPBio) were smaller without soil disturbance (the WT), but were otherwise similar among treatments. At year 15, planted-tree size and stand yield rankings were WTT= SOT= WT > WTB= WTBC. Biomass production by natural regeneration and total stand aboveground biomass (TotBio) treatment rankings were SOT≥ WTT≥ WT > WTB= WTBC. HD, jPPBio, and TotBio showed increasing divergence over time in WTBvs. WTT– SOTresponse, whereas statistical equivalence of the WTTand SOTtreatments was shown for most tree and stand growth responses. There was some evidence of increasingly negative impacts of WTBas site index declined. Overall, negative WTBeffects on tree and stand productivity have become increasingly apparent.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".