Soil properties and lodgepole pine growth on rehabilitated landings in northeastern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We determined post-establishment tree growth and soil properties on rehabilitated log landings and forest plantation sites with medium texture in northeastern British Columbia. Six years after rehabilitation treatments were applied, 60% of rehabilitated landing plots had more than 1000 stems ha-1, while 17% had fewer than 600 stems ha-1. The average height of undamaged lodgepole pine trees on rehabilitated landings was consistently lower than for trees of the same age on plantations. Surface (0–7 cm) and subsurface (10–17 cm) soil bulk densities were higher for rehabilitated landings than for adjacent plantations. Rehabilitated landing and plantation soils had similar values of total and aeration porosity. Plantation soils had higher available water storage capacity (AWSC) than rehabilitated soils. Soil mechanical resistance after landing rehabilitation was often higher than for plantation soils at the same depth. Soils on both rehabilitated landings and plantations showed an increase in mechanical resistance from June to September 2001. With the exception of June 2001, soil mechanical resistance after landing rehabilitation was often higher than 2500 kPa. For surface mineral soils, there were no differences in total C, N, or cation exchange capacity (CEC) between rehabilitated landings and plantations. Rehabilitated landing soils had significantly higher total C and N at 10–17 cm depth than plantation soils, which coincided with higher clay content for the landing subsoils. Key words: Forest soil rehabilitation, soil degradation, soil productivity, soil conservation
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".