MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114926546 · doi:10.5558/tfc78281-2

Modelling silvicultural alternatives for conifer regeneration in boreal mixedwood stands (aspen/white spruce/balsam fir)

2002· article· en· W2114926546 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
David F. Greene, Daniel Kneeshaw, Christian Messier, Victor J. Lieffers, Denis Cormier, René Doucet, K Dave Coates, Arthur Groot, Gitte Grover, C. Calogeropoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Pacific Forest IndustriesCanadian Forest ServiceRoyal Military College Saint-JeanMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (Québec)Université du Québec à MontréalUniversity of AlbertaConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta-Pacific Forest Industries
KeywordsStockingClearcuttingScarificationUnderstoryBalsamForestrySowingSlash (logging)Basal areaSilvicultureAgroforestryMast (botany)Environmental scienceForest managementTaigaBlack spruceAgronomyBiologyGeographyEcologyGerminationBotanyCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We model and compare the biological and financial constraints of four prescriptions that serve as alternatives to conventional clearcutting followed by planting in eastern and western boreal mixedwood stands. These alternative prescriptions for full or partial conifer stocking are (1) reliance on advance regeneration with or without augmentation by fill-planting; (2) understory scarification during a mast year; (3) direct seeding either aerially or with a scarifier-seeder; and (4) underplanting. Our main conclusions concerning the biological constraints are that (1) advance regeneration, mainly of balsam fir in the east and white spruce in the west, requires >26 000 and > 4000 trees/ha (because of different distributions), respectively, to achieve full conifer stocking; (2) reliance on a mast year requires at least 6 m 2 /ha of mature conifer basal area, but much less if some advance regeneration is present or only moderate stocking is desired; (3) aerial seeding with 35% scarification requires about a half-million seeds/ha to achieve full conifer stocking, while a scarifier-seeder would require only a third of this application rate; and (4) underplanting is constrained to aspen stands with >25% incident light at planting height. In all cases, alternative prescriptions become more feasible if only moderate or minimal stocking is the silvicultural objective. A costing exercise for the four prescriptions in comparison with a clearcut followed by planting shows that reliance on advance regeneration or understory planting are the cheapest alternatives to achieve full or partial conifer stocking. With the exception of full conifer stocking in situations where there is little advance regeneration (and where herbicides can be used), conventional plantations are never the cheapest approach. In such cases, fill planting and use of a scarifier-seeder become viable options. Aerial seeding and reliance on a mast year are the most expensive of the alternatives. We conclude, tentatively, that there is enough conifer basal area in most of the eastern boreal mixedwood of Canada to allow for the use of either or both a mast year and advance regeneration to achieve full or partial conifer stocking. By contrast, in the west conifer basal area will seldom be sufficient for natural seeding, and the density of advance regeneration is likewise often too low. Finally, because of light constraints, understory planting appears to have a much wider applicability in the west than in the east. Key words: boreal mixedwood silviculture, white spruce, balsam fir, understory scarification, understory planting, advance regeneration, direct seeding

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations85
Published2002
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207