Trembling Aspen Stand Response 15 Years after Windthrow, Salvage Harvesting, and Forest Renewal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Windthrow is a common occurrence in boreal forests, affecting wood supply and presenting regeneration challenges for forest managers. Salvage harvesting is often conducted afterwards to extract valuable wood and improve access for forest renewal activities. Research efforts, however, are generally limited to the effects of windthrow and salvage harvesting in the first few years following disturbance. In 2006, a catastrophic wind event occurred in a trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) forest in northeastern Ontario. A field study was established with a range of silvicultural treatments from leaving after windthrow (W) to forest renewal treatments including windrow site preparation, planting, and herbicide release (WSPR). While the results of first 5-year assessment have been reported, the objective of the current study was to reassess treatment effects at 15 years post-disturbance, a stage of stand development that is more indicative of future forest conditions. Compared to the results of the earlier assessment, the 15-year assessment indicated that standing dead wood (snags) declined, whereas coarse downed wood did not change substantially over time. Post-disturbance salvage harvesting improved aspen regeneration in terms of density, stocking, and growth, but substantially reduced the proportion of conifers relative to windthrow only. Thus, salvage harvesting helped to sustain aspen composition, compared to other treatment options that increased proportions of pine and spruce trees from W to windthrow and salvage harvesting combined with windrow site preparation and planting (WSP), and from WSP to WSPR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".