Effects of Aspen and Spruce Density on Size and Number of Lower Branches 20 Years after Thinning of Two Boreal Mixedwood Stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined branch diameter, number of whorls, and number of branches in the lower 2 m of the stems of white spruce growing in pure stands and in mixture with a range of densities of trembling aspen. Data were collected from two study sites located north of Big River Saskatchewan, which were regenerated following clearcutting in 1992 and thinned in 1996 to five aspen densities and two spruce densities. Results show significant decreases in spruce diameter at breast height (DBH), height, live crown ratio, maximum branch diameter in the lower 2 m, average branch diameter in the whorl closest to 1 m, and increases in tree slenderness with increases in aspen density. Increasing spruce density reduced the number of live branches and number of live branch whorls in the lower 2 m. Maximum branch diameter in the whorl closest to 1 m was influenced by both aspen and spruce density, with a significant interaction term resulting from effects of intraspecific competition being evident for aspen densities of 1500 stems ha−1 or lower. DBH and slenderness explained more than 49% of the variation in spruce crown width, maximum branch diameter in the lower 2 m, maximum live branch diameter in the whorl closest to 1 m, and average live branch diameter in the whorl closest to 1 m. DBH explained more variation in crown width and branch diameter than slenderness. This study demonstrates that growing spruce in mixture with aspen can lead to reductions in branch size and that early thinning to low aspen densities could lead to increases in size of knots and associated reductions in wood quality, particularly when spruce densities are low.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".