Partial cutting favours northern white-cedar regeneration but does not ensure recruitment to canopy: does browsing matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gap dynamics facilitate recruitment of late-successional species such as northern white-cedar (Thuja occidentalis L.). For this reason, harvests that result in partial rather than complete canopy removal have been suggested for cedar. However, success of regenerating cedar following partial harvests is uncertain, especially where there is heavy browsing by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimmerman) or snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus). Efforts to understand how partial harvests and browsing interact to affect natural regeneration of cedar have been limited. We inventoried partially harvested stands along a gradient of 1–11 years since harvest in New Brunswick, Canada, in an area where deer frequently overwinter. Cedar regeneration was negatively influenced by browsing, but positively influenced by years since harvest and sapling basal area. Cedar seedling survival was assessed over a 2-year period and found to be primarily a function of height at initial measurement, with little influence of browsing. Annual vertical gain of cedar seedlings (a surrogate for height growth) decreased with increasing years since harvest and was influenced by distance from gap edge. In gaps, vertical gain increased with distance to gap edge, while distance to gap edge had a negative influence on vertical gain of seedlings in the matrix (between-gap areas). Many tagged cedar seedlings disappeared prior to remeasurement. These were likely completely consumed by browsers, limiting our ability to determine relative influences of partial harvest and browsing on cedar regeneration. We conclude that partial harvests, as applied in this study, increase cedar abundance and vertical gain, but browsing may necessitate seedling protection. We suggest monitoring to confirm sufficient cedar regeneration in partially harvested stands, using exclosures where browsing is a concern, and retaining or at least delaying removal of seed-bearing cedar overstory trees until regeneration has reached heights safe from browsing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".