MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116530247 · doi:10.21750/refor.10.02.85

Exploring the potential of two-aged white spruce plantations for the production of sawlog volume with simulations using SORTIE-ND

2020· article· en· W3116530247 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Vincent St-Gelais, Martin Béland, Nelson Thiffault

Bibliographic record

VenueREFORESTA · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversité de Moncton
FundersUniversité de Moncton
KeywordsUnderstorySowingThinningSilvicultureAgroforestryYield (engineering)Forest managementForestryMathematicsEnvironmental scienceAgronomyGeographyBiologyBotanyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<jats:p>The main objective for even-aged plantation (EAP) management of producing sawlog material has driven practices towards low initial planting densities and lower post thinning densities. For semi-shade tolerant species, the resulting stand density potentially leaves enough growing space for the introduction of a second cohort of trees in the understory, making it a two-aged plantation (TAP). TAPs could have many silvicultural benefits, especially in sensitive areas where intensive treatments associated with EAPs are incompatible with local management objectives. White spruce (Picea glauca) is a good candidate species for modeling TAPs because it is the most widely planted tree species in Canada and has proven tolerance to understory planting. SORTIE-ND, a single-tree spatially explicit growth model was used to explore the yield of variable density and rotation length scenarios when each white spruce cohort is introduced mid rotation, compared to traditional even-aged management. All TAP scenarios tested produced more sawlog volume and more merchantable volume than equivalent densities of EAPs. The lowest density tested, 400 stems ha-1 planted every 35 years, had the highest sawlog yields (3.23 m3 ha-1 yr-1). Considering smaller size products changes the optimum TAP scenario but maintains the advantage over EAPs.</jats:p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueREFORESTASame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207