Effects of bigleaf maple on the growth and morphology of mature conifers in the southern coastal forests of British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) on the growth of mature conifers in the coastal forests of British Columbia has not been previously assessed.I used a paired plot design to evaluate the influence of mature bigleaf maple on the growth and morphology of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla).Twelve conifer plots including bigleaf maple trees in the center (BLM) were paired with twelve plots that had only conifers present (DF).For the Douglas-fir and western hemlock growing in these plots, the diameter at breast height (DBH), height, age, volume, canopy morphology, site index, stand basal area, tree density and competition index were compared using paired-t tests between BLM and DF plots.Cores taken from Douglas-fir and western hemlock trees were used to assess growth chronologies; and radial growth rates and basal area increment (BAI) were compared between BLM and DF plots.There were no significant differences in tree height, tree age, site index or competition index for both Douglas-fir and western hemlock, and DBH for Douglas-fir, when compared between BLM and DF plots.DBH was greater for western hemlock in BLM as compared to DF plots.Both Douglas-fir and western hemlock that were growing next to bigleaf maple had significantly higher radial growth rates and BAI than Douglas-fir and western hemlock surrounded by conifers only.BLM plots did not have a different standing wood volume (total or conifer-only) than DF plots.My findings suggest that the inclusion of bigleaf maple in conifer stands could enhance biodiversity without negatively affecting timber production.
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 | 0.001 | 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".