Emulating Succession of Boreal Mixedwood Forests in Alberta Using Understory Protection Harvesting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understory protection harvesting is a form of partial cutting that can be used in aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.)-dominated stands that have understories of white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss). This practice involves removing 75% to 85% of the merchantable aspen while minimizing damage to the advance spruce regeneration, in addition to leaving 15% to 25% of the aspen standing to reduce potential windthrow of the spruce understory. In this paper, we summarize results from 18 stands measured 10 to 12 years after understory protection harvest. Diameter growth of spruce increased during the first five years after harvest while height growth increased during the second five-year period (5 to 10 or 7 to 12 years after release). Consistent with other studies, mortality rates of aspen trees ≥7.1 cm DBH (diameter breast height, 1.3 m) averaged 45.0% over the 10–12 year period following harvesting. Spruce mortality averaged 27.5% over the same 10–12 year period. Substantial aspen regeneration was evident across most harvested blocks, with aspen sapling densities 10–12 years from harvest being higher in removal (14,637 stems⋅ha−1) than in buffer areas (6686 stems⋅ha−1) and in extraction trails (7654 stems⋅ha−1). Spruce sapling (>1.3 m height and <4 cm DBH) densities averaged 1140 stems⋅ha−1 in removal areas at ages 10–12, with these trees likely being present as seedlings at the time of harvest. Mixedwood Growth Model projections indicate merchantable volumes averaging 168 m3⋅ha−1 (conifer) and 106 m3⋅ha−1 (deciduous) 70 years from harvest, resulting in MAI (mean annual increment) for this period averaging 2.0 m3⋅ha−1⋅y−1 with MAI for a full 150-year rotation of approximately 2.5 m3⋅ha−1⋅y−1.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".