Density and distribution of advance regeneration in mountain pine beetle killed lodgepole pine stands of the Montane Spruce zone of southern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insect outbreaks, such as the current mountain pine beetle ( Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) outbreak in lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) forests in British Columbia, are major disturbances in many forests. After an insect outbreak, the advance regeneration typically forms a new canopy, which may be adequate for timber objectives in some stands. Our purpose was to quantify and then model the abundance and spatial distribution of advance regeneration (trees <10.0 m tall). We sampled understory and overstory trees in 28 lodgepole pine stands in south-central British Columbia at two spatial scales: 0.1 ha plots and 25 m2 subplots. We developed models predicting advance regeneration abundance and spatial distribution. Density of advance regeneration averaged 2689 trees/ha (range 120 to 23 000 trees/ha), most of which were <1 m tall. Although advance regeneration was clumped, 75% of the subplots contained at least one individual. Models indicated negative relationships of advance regeneration abundance to overstory basal area and density. Over half the stands had enough advance regeneration to form new stands of adequate density, indicating that use of advance regeneration is a viable option in this mountain pine beetle outbreak and probably other insect disturbances.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".