Modeling lodgepole pine silvopastures in South Central British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Silvopasture systems within lodgepole pine stands in British Columbia are not widely implemented because knowledge is lacking on profitability, appropriate tree and cattle stocking standards, and the suitability and potential of understory forage species in silvopasture systems. In order to compare total timber and forage production values of single-crop tree plantations with those of silvopasture systems, this study consists of: 1) a theoretical economic model (the Lodgepole pine Silvopasture Economic Model) that predicts revenues expected for tree-only, pasture-only, and both uniform- and clumped-tree distribution silvopasture systems, and 2) a screening of native and agronomic forage species under simulated shade conditions to compare forage quantity and quality for grazing beef cattle. The Lodgepole pine Silvopasture Economic Model relies on a constant supply of mean production values projected into the future to estimate and compare the yield and value of resource commodities. The objectives of the forage screening component were to compare agronomic and native grass biomass production and forage quality, and study the effects of shading, clipping, and their interaction, on pinegrass and rough fescue, two species native to British Columbia, and the agronomic forages orchardgrass and perennial ryegrass. Some morphological changes under shade were noticed in this study, but the effects were minimal\nin comparison to differences in biomass production between species. The study clearly demonstrated the high productivity of orchardgrass compared to pinegrass and rough fescue as orchardgrass plants produced a total of 11 and 9 times more total biomass than pinegrass and rough fescue under ambient sunlight, but the differences between species factors tended to decrease with increasing shade. The benefit of improved forage production using agronomic species in clumped distribution lodgepole pine silvopasture systems has the potential to provide sizeable benefits to the ranching industry while diversifying resource commodities in lodgepole pine stands.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".