The long-term effects of silvicultural thinning and partial cutting on soil compaction in red pine (<i>Pinus resinosa</i> Ait.) and northern hardwood stands in the northern Great Lakes Region of the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Periodic silvicultural thinnings (23.0, 27.6, 32.1 m2 ha-1 residual basal area) in a red pine stand growing on a sandy soil in north-central Minnesota over a 57-yr period increased soil compaction as the intensity of the thinning treatment increased. Of the three different methods used to measure soil compaction (bulk density, penetration resistance, and saturated hydraulic conductivity), saturated hydraulic conductivity was the most sensitive, decreasing by 60% in the 23.0 m2 ha-1 basal area thinning treatment, as compared with the uncut control. Soil bulk density measurements were more variable, but generally increased with increased thinning intensity. Few differences in soil penetration resistance were found among the three thinning treatments. In contrast, no evidence of soil compaction was detected in a northern hardwoods stand growing on a rocky loam soil in north-central Wisconsin that had three thinning treatments (13.8, 17.2, 20.6 m2 ha-1 residual basal area), a two- stage shelterwood harvest, and a 20-cm-diameter limit cut over a 50-yr period. With the increased demand for forest products, fuel reduction operations in high fire-risk stands, and biomass removal for energy production, more information is needed on the impact of multiple stand entries on soil compaction, and if compaction occurs, whether it will affect long-term soil productivity. Key words: Soil physical properties, bulk density, soil penetration resistance, hydraulic conductivity
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".