Tree-size diversity between single- and mixed-species stands in three forest types in western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mixed-species stands are hypothesized to be more structurally diverse because of inherent differences in growth rates between tree species. We investigated three combinations of even-aged, single- and mixed-species coniferous stands in western Canada: (i) shade-tolerant western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata (Donn ex D. Don) Spach), (ii) shade-intolerant lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.) and western larch (Larix occidentalis Nutt.), and (iii) shade-intolerant lodgepole pine and shade-tolerant black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP). We quantified stand structural diversity based on tree diameter and height by using Shannon's index and the coefficient of variation. Regression analysis was applied to examine the relationships between structural diversity, species composition, and stand age. Mixed-species stands of western hemlock and western redcedar had similar structural diversity to their respective single-species stands. Pinelarch and pinespruce mixed-species stands had higher tree-size diversity than their respective single-species stands. Stand age was a significant factor for tree-size diversity, but its effect changed in different ways depending on the type of mixtures and index used to measure diversity.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".