Manual Cutting of Sitka Alder-Dominated Plant Communities: Effects on Conifer Growth and Plant Community Structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Five-year growth and survival responses of lodgepole pine and hybrid spruce to manual cutting of Sitka alder were studied in two montane vegetation complexes in interior British Columbia. The effects of brushing on plant community diversity and structure also were examined. Alder cover and height were reduced throughout the 5-year posttreatment measurement period, but this had no effect on growth or survival of either 5- to 7-year-old lodgepole pine growing in the Dry Alder complex or 4- to 7-year-old hybrid spruce in the Wet Alder complex. Moderate alder cover, which was characteristic at these sites, did not appear to inhibit diameter growth of lodgepole pine or spruce. This was supported by competition thresholds for conifer diameter of 30 and 37% alder cover in the Dry Alder and Wet Alder complexes, respectively. In neither complex did manual cutting result in any changes in species richness, species diversity, or structural diversity of the vascular plant community. The results of this study suggest that brushing of Sitka alder is unnecessary for release of healthy lodgepole pine growing on mesic sites in the Dry Alder complex and is ineffective at alleviating growth limiting factors to spruce on Wet Alder sites. West. J. Appl. For. 19(4):277–287.
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 | 0.000 | 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".