Effects of wind damage on the optimal management of boreal forests under current and changing climatic conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a new method for considering the risk of wind damage in forest planning and for predicting the amount of damage and its effects on timber production, economic profitability and carbon balance of forestry. The effects of wind damage on the optimal management of boreal forests under current and changing climatic conditions were analyzed by comparing four forest management plans. A reference plan maximized net present value (NPV) with even-flow harvesting constraints. The second plan minimized height differences between adjacent stands, the third minimized height differences while simultaneously maximizing NPV, and the fourth maximized height differences between adjacent stands. To obtain damage-adjusted results, schedules that belonged to the optimal management plans were simulated with wind damage, taking into account the shelter provided by adjacent stands. Maximizing NPV and simultaneously minimizing height differences resulted in the highest damage-adjusted NPV. Increasing wind damage increased carbon balance of forest soil but decreased the total carbon balance of forestry as it decreased the carbon balances of living forest biomass and wood-based products. Climate change slightly improved the total carbon balance of forestry. If wind damage was ignored in calculations, NPV, total carbon balance of forestry, and timber production were overestimated.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".