Ecophysiology and growth of advance red spruce and balsam fir regeneration after partial cutting in yellow birch-conifer stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated ecophysiological and growth responses of short (0.4 to 1.3 m in height) advance regeneration of red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea L.) six years after removal of 0, 40, 50, 60 and 100% of the overstory basal area (BA) in two yellow birch-conifer stands. Partial cuts significantly increased stomatal conductance of red spruce only. Light-saturated photosynthesis (leaf-area basis) of both species increased with BA removal, but unlike red spruce, specific leaf area (SLA) of balsam fir decreased with increased cutting intensity. Partial cuts appreciably increased the concentration of N and Ca in red spruce and balsam fir foliage, respectively, and resulted in decreased foliar concentrations of K in red spruce and Mg in balsam fir. The height and lateral growth of both species increased with BA removal, although partial cuts were more beneficial to balsam fir. The data suggest that short advance regeneration of red spruce and balsam fir can coexist under partial overstory conditions, but balsam fir has physiological characteristics and a capacity for morphological adjustment (SLA) that places it at an advantage when in competition with red spruce.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".