The effect of cutting technique on the mortality and resprouting vigor of poplar stumps in short-rotation plantations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanical felling is the most cost-effective solution for harvesting short-rotation poplar plantations, but the damage inflicted by conventional shear-cutting devices on tree stumps has raised concerns about stump mortality and resprouting vigor, both of which are crucial to coppice regeneration. To determine whether such concerns are justified, this experiment monitored the survival and resprouting vigor of 11 sample blocks composed of two 10-stump row segments that were cut according to one of two methods: (1) a chainsaw or (2) an excavator-mounted shear. The sample blocks were located within the same plantation, established 7 years earlier with hybrid poplars (Populus nigra × Populus deltoides) belonging to the AF8 clone. One year after cutting, no differences were found between treatments in terms of stump mortality, number of shoots per stump, shoot diameter at 30 cm from the insertion, or shoot height. These results support the use of mechanical shears to fell short-rotation poplar coppice. However, further studies should be conducted on multiple fields and clones in order to safely generalize these preliminary findings.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".