Growth of planted jack pine (<i>Pinus banksiana</i>) and natural regeneration ten years after pre- and post-harvest spraying and partial cutting in an Ontario boreal mixedwood forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conventional plantation approach to regenerating jack pine (Pinus banksiana) after harvesting maximizes pine growth but may reduce wood quality. In this study we examined growth of planted jack pine and natural regeneration after herbicide spraying and partial cutting treatments on a boreal mixedwood site in northeastern Ontario. Treatments were pre-harvest aerial spray, post-harvest ground spray in strips (partial spray), partial cut, and post-harvest aerial broadcast spray; an untreated reference stand was used for comparison. Pre-harvest spray was as effective as partial cutting and post-harvest broadcast spray in suppressing trembling aspen regeneration and providing adequate light for survival and growth of planted jack pine. Ten years after planting, mortality and growth of pines in the pre-harvest treatment were comparable to those in the partial and broadcast spray treatments. Due to vigorous growth of broadleaf species [mostly red maple; (Acer rubrum)], and shade from the residual overstory, jack pine was smallest in the partial cut treatment; however, based on branch size, branch-free stem length and stem taper, wood quality was highest in this treatment. Considering factors important to forest managers such as growth and quality of planted jack pine, treatment costs, and proportion of the harvested blocks allocated to conifer production, the preferred treatment was pre-harvest spray.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".