MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381434132 · doi:10.3390/land12061261

Lodgepole Pine and White Spruce Thinning in Alberta―A Review of North American and European Best Practices

2023· article· en· W4381434132 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueLand · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern Forest ProductsNorthern Alberta Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThinningBasal areaSilvicultureForest managementGeographySpruce budwormForestryAgroforestryThreatened speciesEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant portion of the harvested land base in western Canada is becoming old enough or entering a phase where thinning is a legitimate forest management option. A comprehensive review of the existing knowledge of commercial thinning (CT) treatments applied to pine and spruce-dominated stands in Alberta was conducted, with particular regard to the intensity, timing of interventions, method, and impacts on crop tree growth responses. Although the geographical focus of this review is Alberta, information on this topic is more complete in other areas of North America and Europe, where there is a long history of density management. In areas of eastern North America, our review revealed that CT from below, with tree removal levels from 27 to 43% of the basal area, could increase total merchantable wood produced from 11 to 60 m3 ha−1 over a rotation, depending on stand age and intensity of thinning. For Alberta conditions, and considering the risks, we conclude that commercial thinning basal area removal should be in the range of 25 to 40%, depending on a variety of factors such as species, wind firmness, and insect or disease incidence and risk. Thinning too aggressively and/or too late will increase the blowdown risk but the literature is fairly consistent in suggesting that live crown ratios should be >40% to maximize the chance of growth response and minimize the blowdown risk. In cases where stands are also threatened by stressors such as drought, wind, and insect or disease outbreaks, CT treatments likely offer the potential at limiting the overall risk, but localized knowledge and experience are critical. It is intended that the information presented may support ongoing and future research trials and growth and yield (G&Y) model development about potential CT treatments to apply and the likely results of practical application to commercial forestry.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it