MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2135312474 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2012-0169

Sixty-year effects of deciduous removal on white spruce height growth and site index in the Western Boreal

2012· article· en· W2135312474 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Diana E-B Osika, Kenneth J. Stadt, Philip G. Comeau, D. A. MacIsaac

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest ServiceAlberta Environment and Protected AreasUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaForest Resource Improvement Association of AlbertaParks Canada
KeywordsDeciduousTaigaSite indexBorealCompetition (biology)Black spruceForestryHorticultureBotanyEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the boreal plains of western Canada, white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) height−age and site index (SI) curves have been developed and applied to assess site productivity for white spruce without fully considering the competition that usually occurs between the spruce and taller deciduous trees. In this study, we evaluated the effects of deciduous removal on white spruce height growth potential using stem analysis on typical control spruce grown with deciduous neighbours and spruce that were released from deciduous competition ∼60 years prior. Due to the late application of the release treatments (at stand ages of 20–60 years), the observed site index of spruce was not affected by treatment. However, height growth in the 50 years following treatment was increased by 2.1 m. We present a height−age model to specifically estimate the change in SI required to achieve the observed height response following late release. The model indicated that the post-release SI estimate of white spruce would need to be on average 4.2 m higher than control SI to track the height response. This model is useful for estimating the true, competition-free SI for white spruce from the observed SI in natural mixed stands.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicForest ecology and management→French-language works237,207→