Growth of Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and ponderosa pine seedlings underplanted in a partially-cut, dry Douglas-fir stand in south-central British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of partial cutting on seedling growth of three conifer species were studied at a very dry, hot interior Douglas-fir site near Kamloops, British Columbia. Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca (Beissn.) Franco), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.), and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex. P. & C. Laws.) seedlings were planted in mechanically prepared 50 cm × 50 cm patches under different canopy conditions created by harvesting 60% of the original stand volume. The prepared areas were selected to represent canopy closures from open to closed, slopes from 0 to 60%, and all aspects. After six years, survival of Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine was 78%, 76% and 70%, respectively. Light level had a strong influence on survival and condition. Growth of all species increased linearly with light, and was greatest for lodgepole pine, followed by ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Multiple regression analysis showed that six-year seedling size was most significantly affected by total light, and only occasionally by aspect, slope, or crown closure. The best models explained 53%, 47% and 42% of the variation in diameter of lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir, respectively. Natural abundance 13C was positively correlated with light and soil moisture availability, reflecting higher photosynthetic capacity of all species in the wetter, open canopy conditions. Patterns in isotopic discrimination also indicated greater water use efficiency of Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine than lodgepole pine under low light conditions. Underplanting stands thinned to a basal area of less than 15m2 per ha offers a solution to regeneration difficulties on hot, dry Interior Douglas-fir sites. Key words: partial cutting, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, light, soil moisture, 13C, growth, survival, Opax Mountain Silvicultural Systems Project
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 | 0.001 | 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".