MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989344753 · doi:10.5558/tfc2011-072

Influence of herbaceous and woody competition on white pine regeneration in a uniform shelterwood

2011· article· en· W1989344753 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Douglas G. Pitt, Andrée E. Morneault, William C. Parker, Len Lanteigne, Michael K. Hoepting, Al Stinson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryOntario Forest Research InstituteCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceU.S. Forest ServiceOntario Innovation TrustMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsHerbaceous plantUnderstorySeedlingWoody plantSowingVegetation (pathology)DeciduousScarificationGrowing seasonForbBiologyAgronomyCompetition (biology)Environmental scienceBotanyGrasslandEcologyCanopyDormancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the effects of herbaceous and woody vegetation control on the survival and growth of planted and natural eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.) seedlings through six growing seasons following a uniform shelterwood regeneration harvest on two independent sites. Subsequent to chain scarification, white pine seedlings were planted at 2-m spacing, augmenting natural regeneration (full stocking and >3000 seedlings per ha). Herbaceous vegetation control involved the suppression of grasses, forbs, ferns, and low shrubs, and was maintained for zero, two, or four growing seasons after planting. Woody control involved the removal of all tall shrubs and deciduous trees, and was conducted at the time of planting, at the end of the second or fifth growing seasons, or not at all. White pine seedling growth responded positively to increased duration of herbaceous vegetation control and negatively to delayed woody control. Maximum growth was not realized unless both types of vegetation were suppressed. During the first six growing seasons, the height growth of planted pine was more than twice that of naturally regenerating pine, regardless of tending regime. The study suggests that successful white pine regeneration may be achieved by thinning from below to allow 50% to 60% of full sunlight in the understory, followed by the proactive, early suppression of woody and herbaceous vegetation to maintain optimum light levels and reduce competition for soil moisture and nutrients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207