Performance of planted Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir seedlings in British Columbia's southern mountains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared survival and growth of planted seedlings of Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir across a range of harvest opening sizes (> 10 ha, 1 ha, 0.2 ha, 0.1 ha, 0.03 ha and individual tree selection) from three silvicultural systems trials in high-elevation spruce – subalpine fir forests in south-central British Columbia. Climatic patterns and growing season air and soil temperatures were similar across sites. Seedling survival decreased with opening size. Local site climates, influenced by aspect and moisture and air drainage, were more influential than elevation. Seedling growth was best in large openings and similar in opening sizes from 1 ha to 0.1 ha. Smaller openings created by group selection and individual tree selection methods were not favourable for successful planting at elevations close to timberline. The two species had similar absolute and relative growth rates but spruce responded more strongly to better growing environments. Key words: planted seedlings, Engelmann spruce, Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm., subalpine fir, Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt., opening size, elevation effects, silvicultural systems, British Columbia, mountain forests
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".