Temporal changes in species composition of mixedwood stands in northwest New Brunswick: 1946–2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patterns of softwood (SW) – hardwood (HW) change from 1946 to 2006 in 32 unharvested mixedwood (MW) stands in northern New Brunswick were analyzed using aerial photographs (1946, 1966, 1982, and 2006), sampled, and related to disturbance and stand conditions. Five stand development patterns were identified based on 1946 SW content (70%–80%, termed SW versus 30%–60%, termed MW) and change in SW content from 1946 to 2006 (SW-stable, SW-declining, MW-fluctuating, MW-stable, or MW-declining). Species composition was surprisingly changeable over this 60-year period, with change in SW content varying from +18% to –62%. High canopy cover reduction from 1946 to 1966 resulted from balsam fir ( Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) mortality due to old age and a 1950s spruce budworm ( Choristoneura fumiferana Clem.) outbreak plus birch ( Betula sp.) dieback. SW-stable stands that maintained SW composition from 1946 to 2006 (+7%) had more red spruce ( Picea rubens Sarg.) than all other classes in which SW declined by 15%–47%. SW-declining stands were located on southerly aspects (189°) and had higher mean elevations (423 m) than other classes. Results suggest that balsam fir – tolerant HW MW stands may be naturally transitional due to disturbance, species, and stand conditions, which has significant implications for forest management designed to maintain static proportions of MW and SW stands.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".