Can Spot Motor-Manual Brushing Treatments Be Effective for Controlling Aspen and Increasing Spruce Growth in Regenerating Mixedwood Stands?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Broadcast motor-manual or manual brushing treatments applied to control aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) in young spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) plantations often result in increases in the number of aspen stems and the amount of aspen competition. In this study data collected at three locations is used to examine the potential effectiveness of spot brushing treatments, applied over radii ranging between 1.0 and 2.5 m around individual spruce, to aspen that are two, four or six years old. Results indicate that spot manual or motor-manual treatments result in reductions in the number and size of aspen stump sprouts compared to the untreated control. However, when aspen size and vigour are reduced due to site or other factors, as observed for blocks at one location, post-treatment aspen densities may still be high (e.g., above 5000 stems ha−1). Spot treatments applied when aspen regeneration was two years old were observed to be less effective than treatments applied at ages 4 or 6. At two study locations where control was effective, spot brushing treatments significantly increased spruce diameters after treatment compared to untreated. Broadcast or spot treatment using basal bark application of triclopyr ester (Release®) herbicide at one of the study sites resulted in similar increases in spruce diameter to those observed for motor-manual treatment.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".