An experimental comparison of stand management approaches to sudden oak death: prevention vs. restoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many coastal forests stretching from central California to southwest Oregon are threatened or have been impacted by the invasive forest pathogen Phytophthora ramorum, the cause of sudden oak death. We analyzed a set of stand-level forest treatments aimed at preventing or mitigating disease impacts on stand composition, biomass, and fuels using a before–after-control-intervention experiment with a re-evaluation after 5 years. We compared the effects of restorative management for invaded stands and preventative treatments for uninvaded forests with two stand-level experiments. The restorative treatments contrasted two approaches to mastication, hand-crew thinning, and thinning with pile burning with untreated controls replicated at three distinct sites ( N = 30), while the preventative treatments were limited to hand-crew thinning ( N = 10) conducted at a single site. Half of the restoration treatments had basal sprouts removed 2 and 4 years after treatment. All treatments significantly reduced stand density and increased average tree size without significantly decreasing total basal area, both immediately and 5 years after treatments. Preventative treatments did not reduce the basal area or density of timber species not susceptible to P. ramorum, suggesting the relative dominance of these species increased in accordance with host removal. Follow-up basal sprout removal in the restoration experiment appears to maintain treatment benefits for average tree size and may be associated with small decreases in stand density 5 years after initial treatment. Our study demonstrates that for at least 5 years, a range of common stand management practices can improve forest conditions threatened or impacted by sudden oak death.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".