Effects of residual stand density on growth and volume production in even-aged red maple stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of five residual stand densities (9.2, 13.8, 16.1, 18.4 m2/ha, and an unthinned control (27.2 m2/ha)) on10-year stand and crop tree growth and bole quality were studied in an even-aged red maple stand in Michigan. A secondary treatment of removing the understory trees (5-10 cm DBH) was applied on half the plots. Diameter growth was significantly greater in all cutting treatments than in the control. Ten-year diameter growth in the heaviest cut treatment was nearly three times that of the control. The interaction between understory removal treatments and density treatments was significant for net basal area growth. Ingrowth in the heavier cut treatments accounted for a significant portion of net basal area growth in the plots without understory removal. Mortality was highest in the control and lowest in the heavier cut treatments. Epicormic branching significantly reduced clear bole length of crop trees in the heavier cut treatments, especially when the understory was removed. For these reasons, a more conservative first entry thinning level of about 17-18 m²/ha without controlling the understory is recommended for even-aged red maple stands.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".