Effects of aerial strip spraying on mixedwood stand structure and tree growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Herbicide application in strips offers a cost-effective way to accelerate spruce growth in young mixedwood stands, while also retaining the mixedwood character of the stand. In June of 2006 data were collected to evaluate the effects of aerial strip spraying on subsequent growth of treated stands. These blocks had been planted in 1991 and treated in 2000 with Triclopyr ester herbicide applied in strips. Treated and untreated strips averaged 5.8 m and 8.4 m in width, respectively, with 38% of the block area being effectively treated. In 2006 aspen density, DBH, and height were significantly lower in the treated strips compared to either untreated strips or completely untreated blocks. Spruce growth was significantly larger in treated strips with diameter growth responses beginning in the first and height growth responses in the second growing season following treatment. Yield estimates from the Mixedwood Growth Model (MGM) indicate that the strip spray treatments result in the highest spruce yields. However, when understory protection (harvesting aspen at age 70 and spruce at 120) is applied, the untreated blocks provided higher total yield and net present value.
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) | 0.001 | 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".