MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163988704 · doi:10.3390/f12060654

Harvest Retention Survivorship of Endangered Whitebark Pine Trees

2021· article· en· W3163988704 on OpenAlexaff
Michael P. Murray, Jenny Berg, David J. Huggard

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaMinistry of Forests
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurvivorship curveEndangered speciesBiologyWoody plantWindthrowForestryEcologyGeographyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis Engelm.) is a widely distributed high-elevation species in western North America that is threatened primarily by an introduced disease and other disturbances. In British Columbia, this tree is a component of harvested forests, yet knowledge of post-harvest survivorship and factors that promote successful retention is lacking. Our objectives are to describe the temporal attrition of retained mature whitebark pine trees and to identify factors that likely influence survivorship during the critical initial post-harvest period. We assessed five separate harvest units in southeastern British Columbia. Dendrochronological investigation revealed that retained trees experienced high annual mortality rates (3–16%) across harvest sites during the initial five-year post-harvest period. By eight years post-harvest, retention survivorship ranged from 17–80%. After eight years post-harvest, mortality rates drastically declined. The preponderance of fallen stems oriented towards the northeast suggests that storm system events arriving from the Pacific Ocean are the most significant drivers of blowdown. We estimate that survivorship is positively associated with shorter tree heights and longer crown lengths, a lack of disease cankers, a greater presence of rodent wounding, and higher numbers of surrounding retained trees. We found little effect based on slope and aspect. As these trees are an endangered species, harvest operations should be practiced cautiously in associated forests. We recommend carefully selecting retention trees, ensuring an adequate number of neighbor trees, and orienting retention patches to avoid predominant storm wind directions.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.203 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207