Seed Rain and Seedling Establishment of <em>Picea glauca</em> and <em>Abies balsamea</em> after Partial Cutting in Plantations and Natural Stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study documents the conditions associated to white spruce and balsam fir regeneration after partial cutting. Measurements were collected 9 to 30 years after partial cutting in 12 natural fir stands and 5 white spruce plantations. We estimated seed input, measured light reaching the undergrowth, recorded seedlings (<150 cm) and their age on 6 different seedling establishment substrates: mineral soil, moss, rotten wood, litterfall, herbaceous and dead wood. Partial cutting generally favours the establishment and growth of seedlings. The number of fir and spruce seedlings is always greater in natural stands than in plantations, a trend likely associated with the reduced abundance of preferential establishment substrate in the latter. White spruce significantly prefers rotten wood while fir settles on all types of substrates that cover at least 10% of the forest floor. There is a strong relationship between light intensity and the median height of spruce seedlings, but this relationship is non-significant for fir. Seedlings of both species can survive at incident light intensities as low as 3%, but an intensity of 15% or more seems to offer the best growth conditions. The conditions for successful forest regeneration proposed in this study should be applied when the goal is to establish a new stand prior to clear cutting or to convert stand structure.
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".