Early seedling response to group selection harvesting in a northern hardwood forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the immediate effects of group selection harvesting on the establishment of yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britt.) and black cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.) seedlings in maple-dominated hardwood stands of Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario. Group selection gaps were compared to single-tree selection cutting and uncut reference stands pre-harvest and one growing season post-harvest using a before-after-control-impact (BACI) design. The percent cover of yellow birch seedlings increased significantly more in gaps than in single-tree selection and reference plots. Black cherry seedling cover increased significantly more in gaps than in reference plots, but increased at a similar rate in gaps and single-tree selection plots. Increased soil exposure and closer seed trees resulted in increased yellow birch recruitment when harvesting occurred in the late-summer-fall. These factors had little influence on yellow birch recruitment when harvesting occurred in the winter. The proportion of black cherry in the stand overstory had the greatest influence on black cherry recruitment; however, the uneven distribution of black cherry between stands may have precluded our ability to reliably test the influence of other factors. Concomitant increases in potential competitors such as wild red raspberry (Rubus strigosus Michx.) and sedges (Carex spp.) and the continued dominance of sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh) in gap openings may limit yellow birch and black cherry regeneration in successive growing seasons. While continued monitoring is required, our short-term results demonstrate that fall harvesting with group selection is effective at stimulating natural regeneration of yellow birch and black cherry. Key words: yellow birch, black cherry, seedling recruitment, group selection, single-tree selection, mid-tolerant, shadeintolerant
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".