Long-term outcome of precommercial thinning in northwestern New Brunswick: growth and yield of balsam fir and red spruce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was established between 1959 and 1961 to study the long-term responses of balsam fir ( Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) and red spruce ( Picea rubens Sarg.) to precommercial thinning. Three nominal spacings of 4 ft (1.2 m), 6 ft (1.8 m), and 8 ft (2.4 m) were compared with an unthinned control in a randomized complete block design with five replicates. At the time of thinning, natural regeneration averaged 16 years of age, 8 years after harvest. Although thinning had minimal effect on gross total volume production over a 42 to 44 year observation period, actual spacings between 2.1 and 2.5 m produced an average of 360 m3·ha–1gross merchantable volume (GMV), representing a 21% gain over unthinned stands. The same spacings produced quadratic mean diameters of 21 and 23 cm, respectively, compared with 18 cm in the unthinned stands. These size increases translated to individual stem volume gains of 33% and 62%, significantly reducing the age at which thinned stands would meet a specified minimum requirement for merchantability or habitat. The mean annual increment of GMV ranged from 6 m3·ha–1·year–1in unthinned stands, to more than 7 m3·ha·–1·year–1in the thinned stands, and had not yet culminated an average of 50 years postharvest.
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 | 0.000 | 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".