Tree Growth, Foliar Nutrition, and Soil Properties in Mixtures of Lodgepole Pine and Sitka Alder in the Central Interior of British Columbia, Canada: 25-Year Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Densities of naturally regenerated mixtures of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) and Sitka alder [Alnus viridis subsp. sinuata (Regel) Á. Löve & D. Löve] were manipulated in 1995 at a site logged in 1987 in the central interior of British Columbia, Canada. Four levels of alder retention (0, 500, 1,000, and 2,000 clumps/ha) were combined with a uniform lodgepole pine density of 1,000 stems/ha across all treatments. After 25 years, effects of alder retention on lodgepole pine growth consisted of modest reductions in height and diameter increment, and treatment effects on soil nitrogen were confined to the forest floor organic horizons. Nutritional benefits of alder retention for lodgepole pine were not detected after year 6. The operational silvicultural implication of these findings is that only limited intervention to control Sitka alder in similar stands can be justified.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".