Relationships between growth, quality, and stocking within managed old-growth northern hardwoods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An understanding of long-term growth dynamics is central to the development of sustainable uneven-aged silvicultural systems for northern hardwood forests in eastern North America. Of particular importance are quantitative assessments of the relationships between stocking control and long-term growth and quality development. This study examined these relationships in a long-term silviculture experiment established in northern hardwood stands in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USA. Stands were old growth at the onset of the experiment and were maintained at three residual stocking levels (11.5, 16.1, and 20.7 m2·ha–1) over a 57-year period. Several aspects of long-term stocking control were evaluated, including the effects of residual stocking on tree quality development and the relationships between stand stocking and individual tree growth and stand-level production. Results suggest that residual stocking had little impact on quality development, likely due to the initial old-growth condition of the stands examined. In contrast, our results indicate that a range of stand densities will maintain acceptable rates of stand-level production in selection systems and that growth can be shifted between diameter classes depending on desired future stand 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".