<b>NOTE</b>Aging discrepancies of white spruce affect the interpretation of static age structure in boreal mixedwoods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-fire regeneration of Picea glauca (Moench) Voss on boreal mixedwood sites appears to be highly variable over time. Our objectives were to determine whether ground-level ring counts underestimate root collar age of understory P. glauca and whether aging errors increase with stand age. Trees were collected from one to nine stands in each of three fires occurring in mast years between 1961 and 1991. Trees were cut at ground level (humus soil level), and the belowground stumps were excavated, sectioned, and internally cross-dated with skeleton plots after identifying the root-collar location. Ground-level disks were visually cross-dated with a master chronology, which was constructed using the dendrochronology program COFECHA. Ground-level ring counts underestimated age by a mean of 2.4 years (range 06) and 6.4 years (range 013) in 20- and 38-year-old stands, respectively. Age underestimation was significantly greater at the root collar than ground level because of missing rings. Cross-dated age structures showed that apparent regeneration lags in 20- and 38-year-old stands were artifacts of ground-level ring counts and that the first year post-fire was the most important establishment year in all mast year burns. We conclude that aging errors have led to inaccurate depictions of regeneration patterns during early mixedwood stand development. Our results portray a different picture of P. glauca succession and have important implications for forest management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".