Juvenile growth of black spruce (<i>Picea mariana</i> [Mill.] BSP) stands established during endemic and epidemic attacks by spruce budworm (<i>Choristoneura fumiferana</i> [Clemens]) in the boreal forest of Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the boreal forest of Quebec, 80% of harvested black spruce (Picea mariana [Mill.] BSP) stands regenerate naturally. In the remaining 20%, forest regeneration is ensured by planting seedlings and these plantations are expected to increase future forest yields. However, predictions of future yields using the information from very young plantations in this ecosystem may have low accuracy. To compare juvenile growth in plantations versus naturally regenerated stands, and also to evaluate the impacts of spruce budworm Choristoneura fumiferana (Clemens) defoliation periods during the juvenile phase, annual height and volume growth were calculated from measurements on nine black spruce stands. The nine sites consisted of two plantations and seven post-fire, naturally regenerated stands. Of the seven naturally regenerated sites, four were epidemic and 3 endemic. The term “epidemic” refers to stands regenerated during known spruce budworm defoliation periods. The term “endemic” refers to stands regenerated during periods without severe defoliation. For height and volume growth, 5 different methods were used and compared. The annual height and volume growth of all black spruce showed a sigmoid trend, characterized by low values in the first years after germination, followed by an exponential acceleration and finally oscillation around a horizontal asymptote. The black spruce stands established during endemic periods were more productive than those established during epidemic periods, but plantations were the most productive. Key words: black spruce, juvenile growth, plantation, post-fire stands, spruce budworm outbreak, volume, yield
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".