Using spot treatments to regenerate an intimate mixture of trembling aspen and white spruce in Alberta: Results at age 15
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mixedwood stands, dominated by trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) and white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss), are an important fibre source in Canada’s boreal forest and provide a range of ecological services. We present results from a study established in 2002 to test a strategy for growing intimate, single cohort mixtures of these two species involving controlling woody and herbaceous vegetation within 2-m radius spots centered on the spruce planted at 5-m spacing. After 15 growing seasons spruce survival was high (74–90%) in the radial treatments with spruce DBH and height being intermediate between untreated spruce growing under a dense aspen canopy and spruce growing without aspen in the broadcast complete control treatment. Repeated browsing by snowshoe hare, associated with reduced height of spruce, lead to severe reductions in spruce survival and size in the untreated stand, which had an average of 24 500 stems/hectare of aspen at age 15. While spot treatment alone did not significantly affect aspen height or diameter at age 15, thinning of the aspen matrix at age 10 in spot treated stands resulted in increases in diameter growth of both aspen and spruce. Results indicate that radial spot herbicide treatments can effectively improve early survival and growth of white spruce through control of aspen, shrubs, herbs, and grasses and that adding precommercial thinning leads to additional increases in growth of both trembling aspen and white spruce.
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 | 0.000 | 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".