Effect of competition on the growth and crown form of lodgepole pine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tree growth and crown form of 131 open-grown and 63 forest-grown lodgepole pine were investigated. Areas sampled included representative sites in the Interior, Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island in British Columbia. Both graphical and multiple regression analyses were used. The best, but still inadequate, estimator of either radial or basal area growth for the last five years was the growth for the period six to ten years ago. Standard errors of estimate ranged from 21.4 percent for basal-area growth of individual open-grown trees to 43.5 percent for basal-area growth of individual forest-grown trees. More than 90 percent of the total variation in the crown width of open-grown lodgepole pine was accounted for by d.b.h. alone. For forest-grown trees only 56.8 percent was accounted for by d.b.h. This percentage may be increased to 81.1 percent by the addition of height-crown width (H/CW), and to 68.4 percent by the addition of crown width/diameter (CW/D). Average value for CW/D was 0.99 for the forest-grown, and 2.13 for 90 open-grown trees ten years of age or older. Both H/CW and CW/D are significantly related to site index and age. However, when d.b.h. is taken into account, only six percent of the variation in CW/D is affected by site index. Almost 50 percent of the height to the lowest dead branch, and over 90 percent of the height to the lowest live branch could be accounted for by tree age, d.b.h. and height. One of four "competition factors", all related to distance to, and size of, competing trees, accounted for an additional 13.7 percent of the variation in height to dead branches. However, basal area, H/CW, and CW/D were of little importance after the effects of age, d.b.h. and height were accounted for. The maximum growth rate for open-grown trees was determined graphically for ages from 30 to 50 years by site index classes. Comparison with normally grown trees showed that at least twice the normal yield-table-estimate of growth rate may be expected from open-grown trees. Using regression equations developed from the data, a theoretical conversion to lumber was made for a butt log from an open-grown tree. For boards, graded under the Western Pine Association's rules, it was shown that large knots may degrade lumber grown at the maximum rate. Therefore, use of an open-to-normal density model, which allows crowns to compete before excessive knot formation occurs, would be a desirable objective for management of lodgepole pine.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".