Height development of shade-tolerant conifer saplings in multiaged Acadian forest standsPublication 2954 of the Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station, University of Maine, Orono, Maine.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understory growth dynamics of northern conifer species were studied in four stands managed under multiaged silvicultural systems in eastern Maine. Height growth of Picea rubens Sarg., Abies balsamea (L.) Mill., and Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr. saplings between 0.5 and 6.0 m in height was related to the proportion open sky (POS), using sapling height as a covariate. Height growth of T. canadensis equaled A. balsamea and exceeded P. rubens under very low light levels (POS < 0.1) but is much less responsive to both increasing POS and taller heights, reaching 50% of its maximum height growth at a POS of only 0.09. Abies balsamea outgrew P. rubens under similar dark conditions; at higher light levels (POS > 0.10), both species grew similarly. Evidently, no feasible overstory manipulation of light alone can promote more rapid height development of P. rubens saplings over A. balsamea. A nonlinear light-prediction model using stand basal area is linked with height-growth prediction equations to quantify sapling development from 0.5 to 6 m. Depending on overstory density, P. rubens requires a height advantage of 0.14–0.33 m over a 0.5 m tall A. balsamea to reach a height of 6 m over the same time period.
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".