The potential cost of environmental certification to vegetation management in plantation forests: a New Zealand case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plantation forests certified by the Forest Stewardship Council have restrictions on herbicide use. Since certified plantations are dependant on herbicides for cost-effective vegetation management, compliance requires a shift from current chemical practices. Using New Zealand plantation forests as a case study, discounted cash flow analyses were used to estimate the cost of certification-compliant vegetation control regimes compared with current non-compliant methods. We examined methods that (i) reduce the quantity of herbicides by using spot control and (ii) avoid the use of herbicides by using weed mats, manual, and mechanical control. Cost analyses were undertaken for low-, medium-, and high-productivity sites. The internal rate of return of the non-compliant regime was between 5% and 5.8% across the productivity range. Spot control was cheaper than current non-compliant practice. However, spot control is limited by site suitability and the availability of labour. Non-chemical control methods were expensive relative to other regimes. Reductions in the internal rate of return varied across low- and high-productivity sites between 0.8% and 0.5% for manual control, 1.3% and 0.8% for mechanical control, and 1.7% and 1.0% for weed mats. Meeting the goals of certification while retaining cost-effective vegetation control presents a challenge to the plantation forestry sector.
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".