MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973006026 · doi:10.1139/x04-147

Genotypic variation and recovery of <i>Populus tremuloides</i> from biomass removal and compaction in northern Wisconsin, USA

2005· article· en· W1973006026 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. G. Bockheim, Hyun-Eun Park, J Gallagher

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceCompactionBiomass (ecology)StockingSoil compactionBasal areaProductivityAgronomyForestrySoil waterAnimal scienceGeologyBiologySoil scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was initiated in 1990 to determine the effects of simulated logging practices on long-term productivity of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.). Treatments included three levels of biomass removal (entire aboveground woody biomass, control; control + coarse woody detritus, LS; and LS + forest floor, FF) and two levels of compaction (light compaction on winter skid roads, TRA; heavy simulated compaction with FF, COM). The study was conducted on a Typic Haplorthod and a Haplic Glossudalf of medium site quality (site index 50 years = 21 and 23 m, respectively) on the Brule State Forest. Twelve years after treatment, the following results were noted: (1) there were no significant differences in aspen height growth among treatments at either site except for lower stocking, height, diameter, and basal area on heavily compacted plots (COM, forest floor removed before compaction) at the clay site; (2) there was considerable genotypic variation in aspen height growth; and (3) recovery of physical properties, as reflected by bulk density, occurred within 12 years of treatment but was not manifested by improved aspen growth. These results suggest that concern over long-term effects of intensified biomass removal and soil compaction should be matched by a concern over protection of the aspen gene pool in the upper Great Lakes region.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207