Thinning in mature eastern white pine: 43-year case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A white pine (Pinus strobus L.) stand at the western margin of the species range, approximately 125 years of age at present, was thinned in 1953 from 33.5 m2 ha-1 to target residual basal areas of 18.4, 23.0, 27.5, and 32.1 m2 ha-1 . Repeated measurement over the following 43-years indicated that the greatest total volume production and the greatest number of large diameter trees occurred in the unit of highest residual density. Over time, the distribution of stems was predominantly random although mortality between 1979 and 1996 resulted in a tendency for clumping in the 23.0 and 27.5 m2 ha-1 treatments. DNA analysis indicated that thinning intensity had little effect on the genetic diversity of residual white pine. This study suggests that mature white pine stands in northern Minnesota may be managed at relatively high densities without loss of productivity. However, regardless of overstory density, there was little or no white pine regeneration occurring in this stand. Key words: thinning, growth, genetic diversity, molecular markers, spatial pattern, regeneration
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 | 0.000 | 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".