Stem hydraulic properties and growth in lodgepole pine stands following thinning and sway treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to explore the effects of wind-caused sway on the growth and stem hydraulic properties of fire-origin juvenile lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.) stands after thinning. Nine plots were thinned and trees were treated to suppress or exacerbate sway from the wind: thinned and supported with a pole (TP), thinned with an added sail (TS), thinned control (TC), and unthinned control (UC). Terminal leader growth, radial increment, and earlywood and latewood widths at breast height were measured for the last six growing seasons. The specific hydraulic conductivity of stems was measured. The results showed that thinning increased diameter growth and reduced height growth and slenderness coefficient (particularly for trees with added sails) compared with the unthinned control. Trees from thinned stands had reduced specific conductivity compared with the trees from unthinned controls, suggesting that tree bending caused functional damage to sapwood. Specific conductivity was 1.36 × 105, 1.06 × 105, 0.96 × 105, and 0.83 × 105 m·s1 in UC, TP, TC, and TS treatments, respectively. Trees from thinned stands, however, increased their total leaf area in the years following thinning.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".