Tree species selection revisited for plantations in the Interior Cedar Hemlock zone of southern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We provide results from two trials comparing performance of species of known provenance planted on logged sites in the southern Interior Cedar Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone of southern British Columbia 20 and 26 years after establishment. The commonly used plantation species, lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia), interior spruce (a naturally occurring hybrid between Picea glauca and P. engelmannii) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca), survived as well as, but grew more slowly than, western larch (Larix occidentalis), western white pine (Pinus monticola) and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and faster than western redcedar (Thuja plicata). Site index values were generally higher than published values for similar sites. Numerous pests affected all species in the trials. Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) caused heavy mortality in lodgepole pine in part of one trial, and Armillaria root disease caused widespread damage to western larch and Douglas-fir in the other trial. Western white pine from local seed sources were severely damaged by white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) in both trials but a rust-resistant seed source used in one trial survived better. Frost damage reduced survival and growth of Douglas-fir in one trial and may have affected western white pine. Survival of two planted broadleaves (Betula papyrifera) and a hybrid of black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and black poplar (Populus nigra) was severely reduced by drought. The results support ongoing efforts to broaden the number of species used in British Columbia reforestation programs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".