Light availability and soil compaction influence the growth of underplanted <i>Nothofagus</i> following partial shelterwood harvest and soil scarification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated effects of topsoil scarification by heavy machinery on growth of two valuable, shade-intolerant tree species — Nothofagus dombeyi (Mirb.) Oerst. (evergreen and considered to be very plastic to different soil fertility levels) and Nothofagus alpina (Poepp. & Endl.) Oerst. (deciduous and considered to be sensitive to soil fertility) — seedlings that were underplanted in Nothofagus old-growth forests, which were subjected to shelterwood cuttings without the final cut in the Chilean Andes. We compared tree basal diameter growth as it responds to light availability and soil compaction (as measured by resistance to penetration) by fitting a growth model based on the Michaelis–Menten equation. Predicted growth of N. dombeyi was greater than N. alpina in high and low light levels; however, there were no significant differences between the species. Both species showed significant differences at high levels of penetration resistance (>2000 kPa). Differences for N. dombeyi occurred above ∼40% in total light, and differences occurred for N. alpina above ∼20% in total light. However, they were not different when compared at low and intermediate levels of penetration resistance. The results suggest that partial shelterwood cuts may provide adequate light levels to achieve appropriate growth of underplanted Nothofagus seedlings. However, if regeneration of N. alpina is desired, scarification of topsoil needs to be implemented with more caution in canopy openings, as traffic and soil removal by heavy machinery can have detrimental effects on growth of this species and other species that are more sensitive to soil compaction.
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".