Windthrow and growth response following a spruce budworm inspired, variable retention harvest in New Brunswick, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest management regimes increasingly focus on the emulation of natural disturbance events, e.g., fire or insect outbreaks, to help increase ecosystem sustainability. We determined the residual stand response to a variable retention harvest inspired by spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana (Clemens)) outbreaks in New Brunswick, Canada. Our objectives were to analyze the differences between surviving residual trees and those that succumbed to windthrow and to quantify growth release. The treatment was based on harvesting the estimated spruce budworm outbreak mortality, i.e., 90% of mature balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill., 60% of mature spruce (Picea spp.), and no hardwoods. Windthrow increased with the proportion of trees harvested and averaged 52% over 7–9 years in these stands with high balsam fir – spruce content. One-third of 42 harvested plots sustained >30% windthrow, whereas 73% of 11 similar unharvested plots had <10% windthrow. Balsam fir had higher windthrow than spruce at 53% and 41%, respectively. Windthrown balsam fir trees had significantly larger diameters at breast height (DBH, 1.3 m), larger heights, and smaller crown ratios than surviving residual trees. Substantial growth release occurred, with DBH increment of residual trees 48%–64% greater than trees in unharvested plots. Balsam fir and intolerant hardwoods exhibited the largest growth response. We suggest that future spruce budworm inspired harvests in stands with high balsam fir – spruce content use two or three entries about 5 years apart to reduce windthrow.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".