MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043595559

Structure, biomass production and dynamics of four white spruce (Picea glauca [Moench] Voss) plantations near Thunder Bay, Ontario / by William Donald Towill

2017· other· en· W7043595559 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)Standing cropWoody plantBiomass partitioningStand developmentTaigaSoil waterHerbaceous plantBlack spruce
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stand structure, biomass production and dynamics of
\nwhite spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) were investigated
\nin four plantations, ages 4, 10, 18, and 28 years,
\nrespectively, on similar lacustrine soils. Dry matter
\npartitioning of the white spruce component at the individual
\ntree and stand levels and under varying densities of
\ntrembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) was analyzed.
\nA general pattern of stand development tied to: (1)
\nthe timing and severity of site preparation preceding
\nplantation establishment; (2) the nature and distribution
\nof the post-cut vegetation; (3) soil and site conditions;
\nand (4) the successional processes in the tree strata, was
\nproposed which may also be applicable to plantations other
\nthan those in the study.
\nMajor differences in stand structure, biomass
\npartitioning and distribution, within the white spruce
\npopulations of each plantation existed. This variation was
\nattributed to differences in micro-site condition and the
\ndensity of trembling aspen and other herbaceous vegetation
\nsurrounding the planted white spruce. Severe scarification
\nusing a modified V-plough prior to establishment of the two
\nyoungest plantations resulted in highly variable early
\nheight and diameter growth and survival of the planted white
\nspruce.
\nBoth planted white spruce and second-growth aspen
\nproduced maximum height growth and biomass on micro-sites
\nwith deep surface horizons (Ah) where mixing of organic
\nmatter with the surface mineral soil has occurred. The
\npresence of trembling aspen, graminoids, wild raspberry
\n(Rubus idaeus L.), prickly rose fRosa acicularis Lindl.),
\nand other woody tall shrubs during the stand initiation and
\nthe stem exclusion stage were correlated with the decreased
\nheight and diameter growth of the surviving planted white
\nspruce. 
\nTotal standing crop for all species and the white
\nspruce component of the plantations each increased with
\nplantation age; partitioning of biomass to stemwood and
\nfoliage on individual spruce trees was significantly reduced
\nunder high aspen densities and where the standing crop
\nbiomass of graminoids, herbaceous plants and woody shrubs
\nwas greatest.
\nSpruce foliage efficiencies for wood production
\ngenerally increased with stand age, decreasing aspen density
\nand increasing dominance (crown class). A clearly defined
\nand fully integrated biological model relating foliage
\nefficiency of the individual white spruce growing in
\nassociation with trembling aspen could not be developed.
\nHowever, white spruce foliage, stemwood and total tree dry
\nweights were explained in multiple regression models which
\nincorporated the biomass of competing species, soil/site
\ncharacteristics, and a measure of the percent cover of the
\nspruce seedling by competing vegetation.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.208 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University)French-language works237,207