Foliage and wood production in 17- and 32- year old Pinus banksiana Lamb. of Northwestern Ontario / by Bernard J. Phillion. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were 1) to provide information on \nthe above ground biomass production of young jack pine (Pinus banksiana \nLamb.) stands, and 2) to evaluate the influence of crown foliage stand \ndensity, and age on the net current annual wood production of young jack \npine trees and stands. \nTwo naturally regenerated jack pine stands, 17- and 32-years old, \nwere selected for study near Thunder Bay, Ontario, in each stand, one \nsample plot was established at each of three density levels. Each sample \nplot consisted of 15 live jack pine trees. In all, 90 trees were \nfelled in September 1978 and analyzed to determine the above ground \ndistribution of biomass by foliage, cone, stem wood, stem bark, live \nbranch wood, live branch bark, and dead branch (wood plus bark) components. Total current annual wood production was determined by adding the periodic annual increment of the stem for the last three years to the mean annual increment of the live branches. Stand density was determined by computing number of stems per hectare, relative spacing, and basal area. \nStem wood, stem bark, foliage and dead branch biomass increased with \ndensity in both stands. Live branch wood, live branch bark, and cone \nbiomass were not affected by stand density and age. Total current \nannual Wood production was closely related to the foliage dry weight \nsupported by individual trees; stand density and age seemed to have no \ninfluence on this relationship. Total current annual wood production \nper hectare was linearly related to foliage dry weight and stand density. \nIt was concluded that within the range of densities sampled, the two jack pine stands do not give any indication of being over-crowded. Results \nsuggest that jack pine stands, grown for maximum fibre production, should \nbe grown as dense as possible, at least within the range of densities \nsampled.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.009 | 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 teacher head, 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".