Light-growth responses of coastal Douglas-fir and western redcedar saplings under different regimes of soil moisture and nutrients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We characterized the radial and height growth response to light for coastal Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco var. menziesii) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don) saplings growing in sites of different regimes of soil moisture and nutrients on the east coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. We determined that at low light levels, site quality has little effect on the growth response of Douglas-fir saplings. At light levels above approximately 40 and 60% full sun, Douglas-fir saplings show statistically significant differences in height and radial growth, respectively, that reflect the differences in soil moisture and nutrient regimes of the sites we examined. Western redcedar approaches its maximum radial and height growth rates at about 30% full sun. Our data suggest that partial-cutting treatments need to create light environments greater than about 40% full sun to achieve growth that represents a high proportion of the site growing potential for Douglas-fir at full sun, while the high shade tolerance of western redcedar allows silvicultural treatments that retain a high amount of forest structure without compromising growth rates of young trees.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".