Lodgepole pine and trembling aspen competition: Neighbourhood studies within 22 to 39 year-old pine plantations of northern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six lodgepole pine plantations located within the Sub Boreal Spruce (SBS) biogeoclimatic zone of the northern interior of British Columbia were chosen to study the impacts of neighbourhood aspen competition on the growth of planted lodgepole pine (22–39 years old). At each site, 30 pine trees (CP) were selected as plot centres across the observed range of aspen competition. Information on the six nearest neighbours (NN) and a variety of competition indices were evaluated using linear and nonlinear models. Competition indices based on diameter or height relative to size were found as the best overall predictors of CP growth. Proximity of NN to the CP was found to be inconsistent as a predictor of growth. Individual pine and aspen NN modelling suggested aspen competition had the greatest influence on CP growth restriction. The results do not support aspen thresholds for optimizing the growth of free growing pine plantations. It is recommended that performance-based standards be developed that account for aspen competition intensity and provide guidance for the management of pine stand productivity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".