Impact of initial spacing and precommercial thinning on jack pine tree growth and stem quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper was to investigate the impact of initial spacing and pre-commercial thinning (PCT) on tree growth, characteristics and stem quality in plantation-grown jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) after 58 years of growth. Four spacings including three initial spacings without PCT treatment, i.e., 1.52 × 1.52 m (5 × 5 ft), 2.13 × 2.13 m (7 × 7 ft) and 2.74 × 2.74 m (9 × 9 ft) and one initial spacing with PCT treatment (5 × 5 ft thinned to 7 × 7 ft at age 14), were chosen to analyze diameter at breast height (DBH) distribution, survival, and various tree and stem quality characteristics (e.g., DBH, total tree height, stem volume, crown size, branch, taper, sweep and wobbling). Tree mortality during the first 25 growth years was quite low for all four spacings, while after 25 years, survival for the four spacings rapidly declined. The decrease in survival for spacing 5 × 5 was the steepest, followed by spacings 7 × 7, 9 × 9 and finally the PCT-treated stand. DBH distributions for all four spacings were significantly different from each other, and five years after PCT, the 5 × 5 to 7 × 7 spacings had a similar DBH distribution to that of the constant 7 × 7 spacing. Mean DBHs differed significantly among the initial spacings. The 5 × 5 spacing produced significantly smaller trees than did the other three spacings through the years, and the 9 × 9 spacing produced significantly larger trees. PCT had positive effects on DBH growth, and yielded longer merchantable stems and better stem quality. PCT had little effect on crown development. Initial spacing significantly affected diameter growth, crown width and branch development, commercial stem length and volume, stem taper and stem deformation. Narrower spacing produced smaller but better quality stems. Spacing 7 × 7 had the worst stem quality in terms of overall sweep and wave-like transversal deformation (wobbling). A narrow initial spacing followed by a PCT treatment may provide a compromise solution for both tree growth and stem quality. Key words: Initial spacing, thinning, survival, tree growth, stem quality
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".