MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915276681 · doi:10.3390/f10020177

Abundance and Impacts of Competing Species on Conifer Regeneration Following Careful Logging in the Eastern Canadian Boreal Forest

2019· article· en· W2915276681 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Louis-Philippe Ménard, Jean‐Claude Ruel, Nelson Thiffault

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceUniversité Laval
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsBlack spruceLoggingBasal areaVegetation (pathology)SilvicultureBorealAbundance (ecology)TaigaRegeneration (biology)Environmental scienceEcologyForestryStockingReforestationGeographyAgroforestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207