Group and single-tree selection cutting in mixed tolerant hardwood–white pine stands: Early establishment dynamics of white pine and associated species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In mixed tolerant hardwood – white pine stands of Southwestern Quebec, the effects of group selection cutting on eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.), red oak (Quercus rubra L.), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britton) and paper birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.) regeneration are compared to the currently used single-tree selection cutting. The experimental design, initiated in 1998, comprised three cover reduction treatments (circular gap (45 m, 1590 m 2 )), 25% and 35% single-tree selection cutting), two scarification treatments (scarified and non-scarified) and two seeding treatments for white pine (seeded and non-seeded). The effect of white pine seed predation was studied in the gaps and the adjacent understory, with exclosures for small mammals. After three years, scarification had a positive effect on white pine, yellow birch and paper birch regeneration but also on aspen (Populus spp.) and pin cherry (Prunus pensylvanica L.f.) in the three cover reduction treatments. Red oak regeneration was negatively affected by scarification. Shade-tolerant species (sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) and American beech (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.)) tended to be less present in the regeneration gaps than in the single-tree selection cutting. Considering that white pine seed predation can be critical in mixed tolerant hard-wood – white pine stands, a greater rate of seeding is recommended for direct seeding. Key words: group selection cutting, regeneration gap, single-tree selection cutting, tolerant hardwoods, eastern white pine, yellow birch, paper birch, red oak, scarification, direct seeding, regeneration, seed predation
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".