Planting density and mechanical site preparation effects on understory composition, functional diversity and planted black spruce growth in boreal forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanical site preparation (MSP) is used prior to planting to control competing vegetation and enhance soil conditions, particularly in areas prone to paludification. Tree planting density can be adapted to the management context and objectives, as it influences yield and wood quality. However, the combined effects of MSP and planting density on understory vegetation composition, functional traits, and diversity remain uncertain. We thus conducted a study in the Clay Belt region of northwestern Quebec, Canada. After careful logging, the study area was divided into nine sites, each receiving one of three treatments: plowing, disc trenching, or no preparation. Sites were further divided into two, with black spruce (Picea mariana [Mill.] Britton, Sterns & Poggenb.) seedlings planted at either a low planting density of 1100 seedlings ha-1 or a high planting density of 2500 seedlings ha-1. After nine years, we assessed understory composition, diversity, key functional traits, sapling density and growth of planted trees. Careful logging alone led to a higher density of naturally established conifers compared to plowing or disc trenching. The interaction between planting density and MSP significantly influenced understory diversity and composition in plowed plots. Understory composition was affected by the soil C/N ratio, coniferous species, and deciduous species density. The growth of black spruce was notably enhanced with higher planting density in the plow treatment only. Neither planting density nor MSP alone affected tree height and diameter. Our results suggest that combining plowing with high-density planting can enhance stand growth and improve forest productivity. These findings guide future research on paludified forests.
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".