MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509538602 · doi:10.1093/forestry/cpw040

Climate and site factors affecting survival and yield of Douglas-fir in the Cedar-Hemlock ecosystem of the southern interior of British Columbia

2016· article· en· W2509538602 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M. G. Cruickshank

Bibliographic record

VenueForestry An International Journal of Forest Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaMinistry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
KeywordsBasal areaBiologySite indexWoody plantDouglas firForestryEcologyGeographyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extended tree lifespans require investments against decay, herbivory, wind and fire. The commercially important conifer Douglas-fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca (Beissn.) Franco] was studied to identify conditions affecting its survival and growth in nine planted and four natural study sites in British Columbia. Planted Douglas-fir ranged from 20 to 40 years in age, and natural stands from 63 to 110 years in age. Average survival for all tree species in planted stands was 86% after 30 years and for Douglas-fir in natural stands survival was 60% after 90 years. Armillaria root disease was the principal cause of Douglas-fir mortality in all sites. Mortality in planted stands increased with stand age but slowed by age 35. Planted tree mortality was reduced with greater accumulation of cold temperatures which is thought to affect inoculum potential or contact between inoculum and the host. In older and younger stands, site index was positively related to mortality, probably a direct result of the greater contact with fungal inoculum associated with the larger diameter trees. In older natural stands, mortality increased with stand age and was also positively related to the summer heat moisture (SHM) index thought to be through lower summer rainfall. Mortality impacted negatively on basal area yield, meaning that growth of living trees could not compensate for basal area lost to dead trees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestry An International Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207