Spatial and temporal patterns of Populus tremuloides regeneration in small forest openings in northern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The density, height and diameter of trembling aspen sucker regeneration was assessed over a 10-year period in openings created by harvesting in a 40-year-old, 19-m-tall aspen stand in northeastern Ontario. The 5 types of opening comprised: circular openings of 9-m- and 18-m-diameter, 150-m-long eastwest strips of 9-m and 18-m width, and a 1.5 ha (100 m × 150 m) clearcut. Density of aspen regeneration was significantly affected by opening type, location relative to the opening, time since harvest, and by all interactions of these factors. Aspen densities within the circular openings declined to low levels by year 10, despite considerable initial recruitment. Trembling aspen height and diameter were significantly influenced by opening type, location relative to the opening, time since harvest, and by opening × time and location × time interactions. Trembling aspen heights in the circular openings were substantially less than in the clearcut and strip openings by year 10. The results support the traditional view that aspen is best managed under the clearcut silvicultural system, and that trembling aspen regeneration following forest harvesting can be reduced by controlling the extent or intensity of overstory removal. Finally, the results suggest that disturbances that create gaps greater than 1 tree height in width in aspen or mixedwood forests may allow gap dynamics to function. Key words: trembling aspen, silviculture, boreal mixedwoods, regeneration, forest openings
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".