Pre-harvest stand structure and wildlife habitat attributes at a group selection site in the interior cedar hemlock zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"The wetter subzones of the Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICH) zone are naturally dominated by old forests in which trees regenerate and grow in small gaps in the forest canopy. Increased interest in ecosystem-based management has led to interest in the use of partial cutting systems, rather than clearcutting, in wet cedar-hemlock stands. Application of group selection and other silvicultural systems is most effective if it is supported by knowledge of the structure and dynamics of these forests, as well as the effects of partial cutting on resource values. To address this information need, we have established a partial cutting trial in the Quesnel Highland. We measured attributes, including wildlife habitat attributes, of standing trees and logs on the forest floor in the pre-harvest old-growth stand. We measured tree growth rates from samples taken from sound stumps scattered throughout the harvested area, including an 81- to 100-year-old stand as well as the old-growth stand. Stumps of Douglas-fir trees up to 439 years were found. Western redcedar appears to have been a major component throughout the history of the old-growth stand, whereas Douglas-fir is in decline, and western hemlock is increasing. Growth rates of western redcedar, western hemlock and subalpine fir varied greatly from one individual to another, and within the lifespan of a single individual, probably reflecting the variety of microhabitats occupied by these species in a stand where trees regenerate under the canopy. The occurrence of wildlife habitat attributes in standing trees varied by tree species, and increased with diameter. Partial cutting silvicultural systems have the potential of maintaining some of the attributes associated with old-growth stands, but only if the stands are managed so that a significant component of old trees is present in the stand at all times."
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".