Physiology and growth of advance Picea rubens and Abies balsamea regeneration following different canopy openings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the ecophysiology and growth of 0.3-1.3 m tall advance red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea [L.] Mill.) regeneration during a 5-year period following the application of different harvest types producing three sizes of canopy openings: (i) small gaps (<100 m(2) in area; SMA) created by partial uniform single-tree harvest; (ii) irregular gaps of intermediate size (100-300 m(2); INT) created by group-selection harvest (removal of groups of trees, mainly balsam fir, with uniform partial removal between groups); and (iii) large circular gaps (700 m(2); LAR) created by patch-selection harvest (removal of trees in 30-m diameter circular areas with uniform partial removal between gaps). An unharvested control (CON) was monitored for comparison. At the ecophysiological level, we mainly found differences in light-saturated photosynthesis of red spruce and specific leaf area of balsam fir among treatments. Consequently, we observed good height growth of both species in CON and INT, but fir surpassed spruce in SMA and LAR. Results suggest that intermediate 100-300 m(2) irregular openings create microenvironmental conditions that may promote short-term ecophysiology and growth of red spruce, allowing the species to compete with balsam fir advance regeneration. Finally, results observed for spruce in large 700-m(2) openings confirm its inability to grow as rapidly as fir in comparable open conditions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it