Assisted lodgepole pine regeneration on reclamation sites using logging slash as both a mulch and natural seed source
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we tested the efficacy of establishing lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl.) from seed using woody mulch produced from slashed tree tops from a pine harvesting site; this mulch contained the closed serotinous cones of the lodgepole pine. Mulch was spread on prepared reclamation sites at depths of 0, 1, 3, and 5 cm. Broadcast seeding of pine was also done at mulch depths of 0 and 1 cm. Mulch cover that was 1 cm thick was the preferred treatment, as it produced 17 000 seedlings·ha−1 by the third year after treatment while being similar in seedling density to the 3 and 5 cm treatments. When 50 000 seeds·ha−1 were added, seedling density went up more on the sites with 1 cm of mulch than the sites with no mulch. Soil temperature was lower and temperature extremes were reduced under the mulch layer compared with the control plot. The plots with 1 cm of mulch also had higher soil moisture in the mineral layer than the plots with 0 cm of mulch. A thin layer of woody mulch, therefore, provided a source of pine seed and the covering of the ground provided a more benign environment for the establishment of pine germinants.
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".