Lodgepole pine nutrition and growth on grazed forest cutblocks in southern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest grazing occurs on replanted or naturally regenerated cutblocks, giving temporary grazing opportunities for British Columbia's beef industry. However, grazing on forest cutblocks sometimes results in conflicts between the different interests of the timber and ranching industries. The forester's primary concern about cattle grazing and forage seeding on cutblocks is tree damage by trampling and browsing, followed by soil compaction and altered tree nutrition. This study evaluated the effect of long-term cattle grazing and forage seeding on growth and nutrition of lodgepole pine on three grazed forest cutblocks near Kamloops and Merritt, B.C.Grazing regimes consisted of ungrazed exclosures and pastures grazed at 50% forage utilization during 1989–1998. Forage seeding treatments were 0 and 12 kg/ha. Tree measurements and foliage samples were obtained in September 1999. Tree height, current-year growth (length of leader internode), and foliar nutrient levels of regenerating lodgepole pine have not been significantly affected by forage seeding rate and 9 years of cattle grazing. The absence of significant effects on tree growth and nutrition is particularly noteworthy because of the marginal or somewhat deficient status of several nutrients (N, P, B, Fe, and Cu) on these study sites.The management implications of this study relate to the benign effects of 9 years of cattle grazing on lodgepole pine nutrition and growth. The study provides evidence that cattle grazing is compatible with forestry. These results support the integrated use of forested rangelands in southern British Columbia. Attempting to extrapolate these findings to other site conditions should be done with caution.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".