Natural regeneration of jack pine on clay soils following harvesting and site preparation: Seventh-year results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the operational feasibility of six treatments to regenerate jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) naturally without fire following harvesting on clay soils in the southeastern boreal forest of Quebec. The experiment is a randomized complete block design. Techniques used were a final cutting in 1993 with manual on-site delimbing or roadside delimbing combined with three methods of soil scarification (WadellTM, La TaupeTM and a control) performed in the Spring of 1994 compared to an adjacent jack pine plantation established in 1994 after Wadell scarification. Seven growing seasons later, the present article compares stand composition, competing vegetation, regeneration and growth of jack pine between the different treatments as well as an adjacent plantation. Natural regeneration produced mixed stands with an adequate 52% average jack pine stocking. Roadside and on-site delimbing produced similar jack pine stocking on average. However, the plantation showed 83% stocking and better performance than natural regeneration in terms of height (2.48 m vs. 1.7 m for natural regeneration), diameter (41 mm vs. 22 mm for natural regeneration) and jack pine dominance. Therefore, if natural regeneration is desired, roadside delimbing is to be recommended since it provides sufficient seed and does avoid early jack pine growth reductions caused by slash. On clay soils, scarification seems to have been optional. Nevertheless, it slightly increased seedling growth and in this way, the treatment combining road-side delimbing and an extensive scarification can be an effective jack pine natural regeneration treatment.Key words: Pinus banksiana Lamb., natural regeneration, stocking coefficient, delimbing, scarification, boreal mixed wood, seedlings
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".