Windthrow as an important process for white spruce regeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
White spruce (Picea glauca (Moench.) Voss.) is frequently found in association with balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) in virgin stands. However, its regeneration is less aggressive than that of balsam fir. The persistance of white spruce in the canopy might be explained by differential mortality and windthrow. Windthrow could play an important role in creating favourable seedbeds and providing increased light. This paper examines the contribution of windthrow for white spruce regeneration in balsam fir-dominated forests. Experimental windthrows were created and regeneration establishment monitored for three seasons. Windthrow greatly modified the availability of seedbeds and enhanced white spruce establishment. Older natural windthrows were sampled to conclude that this effect was still evident more than five years after windthrow occured. We also noticed that white spruce benefited more from the disturbance than did balsam fir. Finally, sampling conducted in mature stands showed that mature white spruce stems were more abundant on the mounds created by old uprootings, indicating that this effect is maintained in the long term. Even though balsam fir also benefited from windthrow, the benefit was proportionally greater for white spruce. Key words: Picea glauca, Abies balsamea, windthrow, microtopography, regeneration
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".