Single-tree versus group selection in hemlock-hardwood forests: are smaller openings less productive?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of opening size on gap cohort biomass was examined in uneven-aged hemlock-hardwood forests in northeastern Wisconsin by sampling 36 canopy gaps ranging from 5 to 800 m2 in area and from 3 to 55 years of age. The standing crop of whole-tree aboveground biomass per hectare was greater in multiple-tree gaps than single-tree gaps of similar age. However, biomass production approached an asymptote at fairly small opening sizes, and 400800 m2 group selection openings did not have significantly more biomass per unit area than small multiple-tree gaps (80100 m2). Similarly, mean tree dimensions, recent height growth increments, and basal area increments for most species of gap trees approached an asymptote at an opening size of approximately 100 m2. As opening size increased, yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britton) superseded eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carrière) as the species with greatest relative biomass. The selection system appears to be a viable alternative to the even-aged shelterwood system in hemlock forests where browsing pressure is not excessive, but use of group selection may require additional treatments to ensure that some gaps >100 m2 are captured by hemlock.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".