MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018641424 · doi:10.1139/x11-143

A comparison of the effects of different shelterwood harvest methods on the survival and growth of acorn-origin oak seedlings

2011· article· en· W2018641424 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patrick H. Brose

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeedlingAcornGerminationBiologyFagaceaeSowingHorticultureForestryEnvironmental scienceBotanyAgronomyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Timely development of newly germinated oak (Quercus spp.) seedlings into competitive-sized regeneration is an essential part of the oak regeneration process. The amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor partly governs this development, and foresters often use the shelterwood system to expose oak seedlings to varying degrees of insolation. To further understand the seedling development–sunlight–shelterwood relationships, I conducted a multiyear study at five locations in Pennsylvania. Each location had four stands either uncut or recently treated with one of three shelterwood harvest methods (preparatory cut, first removal cut, or final removal cut) resulting in four different levels of sunlight reaching the forest floor. In each stand, four 32 m 2 plots were prepared, and each was planted with 400 acorns of black (Quercus velutina Lam.), chestnut (Quercus montana Willd.), northern red (Quercus rubra L.), or white oak (Quercus alba L.) and protected from wildlife. Germination success was universally high and for the next 8 years, I monitored seedling survival and measured seedling growth. The final and first removal cut treatments had higher seedling survival than the preparatory cut and uncut treatments. Oak seedling growth was positively related to sunlight availability; seedlings in the final removal cut grew the most, followed in descending order by those in the first removal cut, preparatory cut, and uncut treatments. These findings provide insight into the subtleties of regenerating oak forests with the shelterwood system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207