MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033999716 · doi:10.1139/x00-079

Population density influences assessment and application of site index

2000· article· en· W2033999716 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David W. MacFarlane, Edwin J. Green, Harold E. Burkhart

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNew Jersey Agricultural Experiment StationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSite indexSowingLoblolly pinePinus <genus>Population densityForestryYield (engineering)Index (typography)Leaf area indexGeographyPopulationStatisticsMathematicsAgronomyBiologyDemographyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The height growth of dominant trees in plantations is often assumed to be independent of initial planting density. This assumption allows for the use of dominant tree height as an index of site quality. We found that this assumption was false for the seven tallest trees in 184 even-aged loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) stands, planted at nine initial planting densities, at four different geographic locations. A strong, highly significant negative correlation was found between dominant height and initial planting density for stands 14 and 16 years of age. This leads to large differences in predicted site index for stands with different initial planting densities planted at the same geographic location. Use of these site indices to predict yield produced large differences in predicted yield (m 3 /ha) at age 25. These results provide strong evidence for density-dependent height growth, even for dominant trees in the stand, and suggest that site index, used as a measurement of site quality, is confounded with stand density.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations61
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207