Decline of planted lodgepole pine in the southern interior of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lodgepole pine is extensively planted across western Canada but little is known about development of these stands beyond the juvenile stage. We quantified stocking status and damage incidence in sixty-six 15- to 30-year-old lodgepole pine plantations that had previously been declared free-growing in the southern interior of British Columbia. The stands were located in six biogeoclimatic zones: Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir (ESSF), Montane Spruce (MS), Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICH), Interior Douglas-fir (IDF), Sub-Boreal Spruce (SBS), and Sub-Boreal Pine-Spruce (SBPS). Free-growing standards were no longer met on 27% of plantations, with the worst performance (70% no longer free-growing) in the Interior Cedar-Hemlock forests. Natural regeneration was common but it was half the size of lodgepole pine. Biotic damage, especially hard pine stem rusts, was the dominant factor reducing free-growing densities. Stands were at greater risk of reduced stocking where summer precipitation was higher or soil moisture regimes were wetter and where stands had been broadcast-burned prior to planting or received secondary treatments of brushing or pruning. Reforestation policies that encourage widespread planting of lodgepole pine, particularly in areas where lodgepole pine has limited natural occurrence such as in the ICH zone, should be reconsidered given that health problems are extensive and are expected to increase with climate change.Key words: Pinus contorta, lodgepole pine, free-growing, stocking, forest health, damage, disease
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".