MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405928113 · doi:10.3390/f16010051

Contrasting Effects of Broadleaf Thinning Treatments on Spruce Growth in Central British Columbia, Canada

2024· article· en· W4405928113 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hardy P. Griesbauer, Chris Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsYukon UniversityGovernment of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThinningCompetition (biology)WeevilHectareForestryAgronomyBiologySilvicultureAgroforestryGeographyEcologyAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As forest managers increasingly seek to develop and maintain mixedwood forests, more information is required on the potential facilitative and competitive interactions between tree species. We present data from a broadleaf thinning study established in a mixedwood stand in Central British Columbia, Canada, to examine how residual trembling aspen and paper birch competitively affect spruce growth after thinning but may also concurrently protect spruce from attack by the white pine weevil. Tree-level data collected at a stand age of 36 years, 19 years after broadleaf trees were thinned, show that spruce height and diameter growth declined with broadleaf competition, particularly from taller trees, resulting in a competition-related reduction in stand-level spruce volume yields. The fastest spruce growth occurred in treatments where all broadleaf trees were removed, but complete broadleaf removal also resulted in higher rates of weevil attack on spruce, which also caused height and diameter growth reductions. Our results suggest that maintaining a density of approximately 500 broadleaf trees per hectare may achieve a stand condition that balances spruce growth reductions from competitive interactions with broadleaf trees while providing some protection from white pine weevil attacks.

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 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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207