Growth response to pre-commercial thinning of lodgepole pine is short-term but the effects on size distribution persist for decades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pre-commercial thinning in Alberta is a potential option for increasing the growth rate and shortening the rotation age of regenerating forests. Previous studies have focused on the evaluation of either the immediate- or long-term response to thinning after many decades. Our current study compares the pre-commercial thinning response in lodgepole pine for a 10-year period immediately after thinning, and again 38-45 years after thinning, based on 22 paired plots of precommercially thinned trials in Alberta. The first group of plots was pre-commercially thinned in 1984, measured in 1985 and 1995 (short-term) and the second group was pre-commercially thinned between 1962 and 1969 and measured in 2007 and 2017 (long-term). In the short-term, individual tree DBH growth was 56% greater in pre-commercially thinned plots, while in the long-term plots, there were no measured growth differences between pre-commercially thinned and unthinned plots. Small- and medium-sized trees benefited more from pre-commercial thinning than larger trees. However, at the stand level, the number and volume of merchantable-sized trees (≥13.5 cm DBH) were higher in pre-commercially thinned plots than in unthinned plots in both the short- and long-term. Although the growth response of thinning appeared to be a short-term response (number and volume of larger trees), yield at the end of the long-term measurement period was still higher in pre-commercially thinned than in unthinned plots.
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".