Does single-tree selection work? Observations from 56 years of measurements at Parkside Gully, Algonquin Park, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parkside Gully was established in 1967, with an unharvested side added in 1974 in response to growing interest in single-tree selection silviculture in Ontario. The site was last operationally harvested in the early 1930s. Since 1967, it has been experimentally harvested four times. Measurement methodologies have evolved and it is not replicated. However, it remains one of Canada’s longest single-tree selection experiments and can offer valuable insights. In this study, we use data from 15 one acre plots (10 harvested, 5 unharvested) to show that over 56 years, the harvested side consistently met sustainable stocking, structure, and quality improvement objectives. At the same time, stocking in the unharvested side declined while quality increased, albeit at a slower pace. We also found that high quality stems have much lower mortality risk and grow faster than lower quality stems. Despite meeting all stand-level objectives, we demonstrated that ingress of beech remains a pernicious issue: beech outgrows maple, and has dominated the regeneration layer since at least 2005 despite the absence of beech bark disease. Understanding what drives the ingress of beech into Ontario’s single-tree selection systems will be essential to maintaining the sustainability of the system into the future.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".