Evaluating Hysteresis Patterns in Sap Flow of a Red Pine Forest Subjected to Different Variable Retention Harvesting Treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Forests significantly influence regional and global water cycles through transpiration, which is affected by meteorological variables, soil water availability, and stand and site characteristics. Variable retention harvesting (VRH) is a forest management practice in which varying densities of trees, such as 55% and 33%, are retained after thinning or harvesting. These trees can be grouped together or evenly distributed. VRH aims to enhance forest growth, improve biodiversity, preserve ecosystem functions, and generate economic revenue from harvested timber. Application of VRH treatment in forest ecosystems can potentially impact the response of forest transpiration to environmental controls. This study analyzed the impacts of four different VRH treatments on sap flow velocity (SV) in an 83‐year‐old red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.) plantation forest in the Great Lakes region in Canada. These VRH treatments included 55% aggregated (55A), 55% dispersed (55D), 33% aggregated (33A), and 33% dispersed (33D) basal area retention, and an unharvested control (CN) plot, 1 ha each. Analysis of counterclockwise hysteresis loops between SV and meteorological variables showed larger hysteresis areas between SV and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) than vapor pressure deficit (VPD) and air temperature (Tair), particularly in clear sky and warm temperatures in the summer. It demonstrated that PAR was the primary control on SV across VRH treatments, followed by VPD and Tair. Larger hysteresis loop areas and higher SV values were observed in the CN and 55D treatments, with lower values found in the 55A, 33D, and 33A plots. This suggests that maintaining dispersed retention of 55% basal area (55D) is the optimal forest management practice that can be utilized to enhance transpiration and forest growth. These findings will assist forest managers and other stakeholders to adopt sustainable forest management practices, thereby enhancing forest growth, water use efficiency, and resilience to climate change. Additionally, these practices will contribute to nature‐based climate solutions.
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".