Effect of gap size on composition and structure of regeneration 19 years after harvest in a southeastern bottomland forest, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following timber harvests in bottomland mixed-oak (Quercus L.) stands, desirable oak advance regeneration can be overgrown by shade-intolerant pioneer species. We investigated the effects of group selection opening size on composition of tree regeneration 19 years postharvest in an oak-dominated bottomland forest and compared results with earlier findings to evaluate development trends. In response to six opening sizes (7–40 m radii), we evaluated regeneration density and dominance of four tree species groups: conifers, hard mast, shade-intolerant hardwoods, and shade-tolerant hardwoods. Our objectives were to determine the optimum gap size for regenerating oaks and test the delayed oak dominance hypothesis, in which oaks slowly gain dominance as pioneer species undergo self-thinning. Opening size influenced conifer regeneration but minimally affected hardwoods. Hard mast species density was less than that of either intolerant or tolerant species regardless of opening size. Future stem density trends suggest increasing intolerant species and constant mast and tolerant species. Modeled future height trends suggest increasing mast species dominance over intolerant pioneers after 30 years. Our results suggest that gap-based silviculture can be used to regenerate bottomland hardwood stands with desirable species including oaks; larger gaps favor conifers but there was no optimum size to enhance oak regeneration.
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 | 0.000 | 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".