Evidence against planting lodgepole pine monocultures in the cedar-hemlock forests of southeastern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single-species planting of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) following clear-cut logging or wildfire has been common throughout interior British Columbia, Canada, but health problems with the species have been documented as it grows beyond the juvenile stage. We examined damage and stocking in twenty-seven 15- to 30-year-old lodgepole pine plantations that were previously declared free growing in the highly productive cedar–hemlock forests in southeastern British Columbia, where lodgepole pine is absent from many primary forests. In order to be free growing, stands must meet minimum tree density, height, damage and brush competition criteria as legislated by the Provincial government. Overall, 44 per cent of lodgepole pine trees had unacceptable damage (causing them to be rejected as crop trees), and as a direct result, one-third of the plantations were no longer defined as free growing because there were insufficient crop trees remaining. Natural regeneration of other tree species partially compensated for the unhealthy pine. Logistic regression and odds ratio analysis associated increasing risk of damage from western gall rust with increasing soil moisture, more northerly aspects and mechanical site preparation, and decreasing risk with pre-commercial thinning treatment. Risk of damage from snow and ice was associated with increasing mean annual precipitation, decreasing longitude and broadcast burning. Risk of bear damage was associated with increasing soil moisture, pre-commercial thinning treatment and broadcast burning. Based on our results, we recommend that single-species planting of lodgepole pine be curtailed in the Interior Cedar–Hemlock zone in southeastern British Columbia.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".