Patterns of above- and below-ground response of understory conifer release 6 years after partial cutting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increased pressure to use silvicultural techniques not based on clear-cutting followed by planting has led to an interest in systems that take advantage of existing understory seedlings (advance regeneration). Earlier studies have suggested that following harvesting, understory seedlings may experience growth reductions before responding with growth increases. We hypothesize that this "growth shock" following release results because seedlings are ill adjusted to the new growing conditions and that this can be investigated through a comparison of growth in different parts of the tree over a 6-year period. This study compares the growth response of three size classes of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) seedlings to a partial overstory removal in relatively dry conifer forests of central British Columbia. Growth was evaluated in four parts of the studied trees: radial increment in roots, in the base of the stem, and in branches, as well as leader height growth extension. Our findings show that following release from the overstory, early growth increases were largest in the roots and stems irrespective of the species or the size class. Differences between the species were observed in greater absolute height growth for pine, whereas Douglas-fir invested in greater stem growth, especially in the larger individuals. Important differences also occurred temporally. Both species (and all size classes) responded with an immediate increase in root growth followed, after a 1-year delay, by an increase in stem growth. Branch radial increment (for pine) and leader height growth (both species), however, experienced 2 to 3 year growth reductions before responding. It is therefore suggested that individuals restore the rootshoot balance by greater initial investments to root growth to offset the increased transpiration losses associated with the greater light and higher temperature conditions and the relative changes in the photosynthetic versus nutrient uptake capacity following the canopy opening. Foresters may therefore be able to manipulate tree growth responses by using an appropriate degree of overstory removal or opening size.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".