Short-term thinning effect on inter- and intra-annual radial increment of Mediterranean Scots pine-oak mixed forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Thinning treatment and mixed forest stands have been suggested as possible adaptation strategies to cope to climate change but there is still scarce knowledge about the combination of both subjects. In this study, we aim to better understand the thinning effect and the growth differences between two coexisting species on inter- and intra-annual cumulative radial increment patterns. We studied radial increment of a Scots pine-oak ( Pinus sylvestris-Quercus pyrenaica ) Mediterranean mixed forest during two climatically contrasted years (2016-2017) in north-western Spain. Data came from a thinning trial consisting in a randomized block experimental design with a control and two thinning treatments from below: a moderate and heavy thinning removing 25% and 50 % of initial basal area respectively focused on both species. Tree radial increment was analyzed based on bi-weekly readings from band dendrometers installed in 90 oak and pine trees. Non-linear mixed model based on double-Richards curve was fitted to show thinning and species differences in intra-annual cumulative radial increment patterns. Inter-annual basal area increment at species and stand levels were estimated using the model previously fitted at tree level and aggregating the results for exploring thinning effects at these levels. Scots pine leaded the tree and stand growth, and had also a better respond to early spring drought compared to oak. Heavy thinning increased tree radial increment for both species at the expense of decreased stand basal area. At species level, basal area increment decreased for Scots pine, however, heavy thinning generated the same oak basal area increment than control. Thus, heavy thinning may be good strategy towards a conversion from overaged coppice stands into high forests to conform a stable mixed forest stand. Highlights Scots pine leaded growth at tree and stand level Scots pine trees may take advantage during early spring droughts Heavy thinning increased tree radial increment for both species Heavy thinning decreases stand basal area growth
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".