Effects of variable retention harvesting on canopy transpiration in a red pine plantation forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Variable Retention Harvesting (VRH) is a forest management practice applied to enhance forest growth, improve biodiversity, preserve ecosystem function and provide economic revenue from harvested timber. There are many different forms and compositions in which VRH is applied in forest ecosystems. In this study, the impacts of four different VRH treatments on transpiration were evaluated in an 83-year-old red pine (Pinus Pinus resinosa ) plantation forest in the Great Lakes region in Canada. These VRH treatments included 55% aggregated crown retention (55A), 55% dispersed crown retention (55D), 33% aggregated crown retention (33A), 33% dispersed crown retention (33D) and unharvested control (CN) plot. These VRH treatments were implemented in 1-ha plots in the winter of 2014, while sap flow measurements were conducted from 2018 to 2020. Results Study results showed that tree-level transpiration was highest among trees in the 55D treatment, followed by 33D, 55A, 33A and CN plots. We found that photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and vapor pressure deficit (VPD) were major controls or drivers of transpiration in all VRH treatments. Our study suggests that dispersed or distributed retention of 55% basal area (55D) is the ideal forest management technique to enhance transpiration and forest growth. Conclusions This study will help researchers, forest managers and decision-makers to improve their understanding of water cycling in forest ecosystem and adopt the best forest management regimes to enhance forest growth, health and resiliency to climate change.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".