Herbivory and advance reproduction influence quaking aspen regeneration response to management in southern Utah, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent concern regarding the potential decline of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) forests in the western United States has sparked concern over whether the species can be effectively regenerated. Using a retrospective approach, we quantified the response of regenerating aspen stems to an ordinary set of silvicultural treatments conducted over approximately the past decade in southern Utah, USA. A suite of variables describing stand structure and composition, stand vigor, physiographic factors, herbivore pressure, and treatment types were measured to predict the possible controls, as well as their relative importance, on aspen regeneration. Results suggested that aspen regeneration was most strongly related to browsing pressure, site preparation technique, and the presence of advance reproduction before treatment, which is a novel finding. Secondary predictors included elevation, site index, and overstory conditions, which are generally characteristics of stand vigor. Management recommendations based on our results should recognize the strong primary control that browsing pressure exerts on regeneration. First, the height of advance reproduction is inherently dependent on antecedent herbivory and also indicative of present browsing and should be assessed before treatment. Second, the most effective site preparation techniques, namely broadcast burning and browsing reduction, will directly reduce browsing pressure, assuming ungulate populations are not too large. Any management targeting timely and effective aspen regeneration should incorporate monitoring and (or) controlling browsing pressure, both before and after treatment.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".