Stand age structural dynamics of conifer, mixedwood, and hardwood stands in the boreal forest of central Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To study the effects of stand development and overstory composition on stand age structure, we sampled 32 stands representing conifer, mixedwood, and hardwood stand types, ranging in ages from 72 to 201 years on upland mesic sites in northwestern Ontario. We defined the stages of stand development as: stem exclusion/canopy transition, canopy transition, canopy transition/gap dynamics, and gap dynamics. Stand age structure of conifer stands changed from bimodal, bimodal, reverse-J, and bimodal, respectively, through the stages of stand development. Mixedwood and hardwood stands revealed similar trends, with the exception of missing the canopy transition/gap dynamic stage in mixedwoods. Canopy transition/gap dynamic stage in hardwoods showed a weaker reverse-J distribution than their conifer counterparts. The results suggest that forest management activities such as partial and selection harvesting and seed-tree systems may diversify standard landscape-level age structures and benefit wildlife, hasten the onset of old-growth, and create desired stand age structures. We also recommend that the determination of old-growth using the following criteria in the boreal forest: 1) canopy breakdown of pioneering cohort is complete and stand is dominated by later successional tree species, and 2) stand age structure is bimodal, with dominating canopy trees that fall within a relatively narrow range of age and height classes and a significant amount of understory 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".