Abundance and Impacts of Competing Species on Conifer Regeneration Following Careful Logging in the Eastern Canadian Boreal Forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Managing competing vegetation is crucial in stand establishment strategies; forecasting the abundance, composition, and impact of competing vegetation after harvesting is needed to optimize silviculture scenarios and maintain long-term site productivity. Our main objective was to identify factors influencing the short-term abundance and composition of competing vegetation over a large area of the Canadian boreal forest. Our second objective was to better understand the mid-term evolution of the regeneration/competing vegetation complex in cases of marginal regeneration conditions. We used operational regeneration surveys of 4471 transects sampled ≈5 years after harvesting that contained data on regeneration, competing vegetation, elevation, ecological classification, soil attributes, and pre-harvest forest stands. We performed a redundancy analysis to identify the relationships between competing vegetation, harvesting and biophysical variables. We then estimated the probability of observing a given competing species cover based on these variables. In 2015, we re-sampled a portion of the sites, where conifer regeneration was marginal early after harvesting, to assess the temporal impact of different competing levels and species groups on the free-to-grow stocking, vigour and basal area of softwood regeneration. Results from the first inventory showed that, after careful logging around advance growth, ericaceous shrubs and hardwoods were not associated with the same sets of site attributes. Ericaceous shrubs were mainly found on low fertility sites associated with black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) or jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.). The distinction between suitable environments for commercial shade-intolerant hardwoods and non-commercial hardwoods was less clear, as they responded similarly to many variables. Analysis of data from the second inventory showed a significant improvement in conifer free-to-grow stocking when commercial shade-intolerant hardwood competing levels were low (stocking 0%–40%) and when ericaceous shrubs competing levels were moderate (percent cover 26%–75%). In these conditions of marginal regeneration, the different types and intensities of competition did not affect the vigour or basal area of softwood regeneration, 9–14 years after harvesting.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".