Soil disturbance and five-year tree growth in a montane alternative silvicultural systems (MASS) trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ground-based forestry practices can negatively affect soil productivity by altering the physical, chemical, and biological properties of soil. The effect of soil disturbance on soil properties and tree growth was evaluated following single-pass hydraulic excavator and multiple-pass combined excavator and flexible track grapple skidder forwarding in four silvicultural systems treatments: Clearcut (CC), Green Tree Retention (GT), Patch Cut (PC), and Uniform Shelterwood (SW). The effectiveness of an excavator soil-rehabilitation technique (tilling) in decompacting skidtrails (i.e., reducing soil bulk density) and nutrient availability was also evaluated. Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) and amabilis fir (Abies amabilis Dougl. Ex. Forbes) seedlings were planted on undisturbed plots, within tracks and between tracks of skidtrails, and in rehabilitated trails within the four harvesting treatments in the spring of 1994. Seedling growth was measured after five growing seasons, and nutrient concentrations of current-year foliage were determined at the end of the fourth growing season. Seedling survival and growth was generally reduced by soil disturbances associated with skid-trails. Effects of disturbance on physical properties of soil (e.g., compaction, puddling) and disruption of drainage were the most likely causes. Nutrient deficiencies do not appear to be a factor. Nonetheless, nitrogen concentrations were lower in current-year foliage taken from rehabilitation treatments than from either undisturbed or skidtrail treatments. Effectiveness of soil rehabilitation varied. In well-drained deeper soils, tilling reduced soil bulk density to levels below those of undisturbed soils and, in the short-term (five years), improved tree growth. In wetter conditions, rehabilitation treatment decreased survival and growth of both species. Thus specific rehabilitation (tilling) prescriptions should not be universally applied across a landscape. Key words: Abies amabilis, Tsuga heterophylla, foliar analysis, soil bulk density, soil compaction, soil rehabilitation
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".