Twenty-six years of aspen regeneration under varying light conditions in a boreal mixedwood forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Density, height, and diameter at breast height of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) sucker regeneration were assessed over a 26-year period in openings created by harvesting in a 40-year-old aspen stand in northeastern Ontario (Canada). The opening types were 9- and 18-m diameter circles, 9- and 18- _ 150-m east-west strips, and a 100- _ 150-m clearcut, representing a range of light conditions. Density, height, and diameter at breast height of aspen regeneration were significantly affected by opening type, location relative to opening, and time since harvest. By year 26, aspen densities in circular openings declined to 0, despite high initial recruitment, and trembling aspen heights were significantly lower in the 9-m strips than in the 18-m strips or the clearcut. Year 26 aspen density, volume, and basal area increased with increasing initial light intensity, with the highest rate of increase between 80 and 100% light levels. Understory vegetation cover was largely unaffected by opening size; however, substantial understory aspen regeneration occurred in the smaller openings. Results support the traditional view that aspen is best managed under the clearcut silvicultural system, and >80% full light is recommended for adequate long-term aspen regeneration.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".