Within and between-species competition and individual tree growth in a young jack pine-aspen stand / by Mugasha Ancelm Godfrey. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The competitive relationship between jack pine (Finns banksiana Lamb.) and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) was studied in an 8-year-old mixed stand in North Central Ontario, Canada. During the summer of 1984, a total of 298 subject trees were selected at random within the stand. Half of the study trees were jack pine, the other half aspen. From the trees neighbouring each subject tree, competitor trees were identified by \nmeans of a modified horizontal point sample centered on the subject tree. The data include a wide range of conditions with respect to both stand density and composition. Subject trees were measured for initial size (stemwood volume, stem radius at stump height and height) \nand the 1983 annual increment of the same size attributes. Live crown ratio at the time of sampling was also measured. The current annual increment data were analysed with respect to initial subject tree size and competitive environment by means of multiple linear regression. The objective was to investigate a hierarchy of mutually exclusive hypotheses regarding the nature of the competitive interaction between the 2 study species. The results indicate that jack pine and aspen responded differently to competition, and that the competitive effect of the jack pine component was different than that of the aspen component when both species occurred in a mixture. Specifically, the annual volume increment and annual radial increment of aspen subject trees was affected only by the aspen \ncomponent of the competing stand. The annual volume increment and annual radial increment of jack pine subject trees, on the other hand, were affected by both the jack pine and aspen components of the competing stand. Although the study is of limited scope, it does provide some interesting insights into the possible dynamics of mixed stands of these \nimportant, and commonly associated, boreal species. The work also gives some indication that the competitive effect of aspen on jack pine may be sufficiently strong to warrant the consideration of silvicultural control in situations where jack pine is the crop species.
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) | 0.001 | 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".