Impact of Initial Spacing on Plantation Black Spruce Lumber Grade Yield, Bending Properties, and MSR Yield
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For decades, initial spacing of 2 m X 2 m has been used for black spruce ( Picea mariana ) reforestation in eastern Canada. In recent years, however, wider spacings for black spruce are being advocated to reduce establishment costs and accelerate tree growth. Wider spacings will affect not only return on investment but also the quality of products from the plantations, both of which are critical to the success of reforestation programs. As part of a multidisciplinary project, this study evaluated and quantified the impact of initial spacing on lumber grade yield, bending properties, and MSR yield in this species. Furthermore, visual grades of the plantation-grown lumber were compared for their bending properties and their compliance to the current grade requirements for bending stiffness. A total of 139 sample trees were collected from 4 different spacings (3,086, 2,500, 2,066, 1,372 trees/ha) in a 48-year-old initial spacing trial, and 849 pieces of 2-in.-thick lumber from the 4 spacings were graded visually and tested for bending strength and stiffness. With decreasing initial stand density from 3,086 to 2,066 trees/ha, branch diameter showed a steady increase. However, the 3 higher stand densities (3,086, 2,500, and 2,066 trees/ha) had a comparable Select Structural (SS) grade yield thanks to the relatively small branches in this species. Lumber strength and stiffness in those 3 spacings were also quite comparable. When the initial stand density was further reduced to 1,372 tree/ha, however, a remarkable decrease in the SS grade yield due to knots occurred, and lumber strength and stiffness also decreased significantly. The real concern occurred when the plantation-grown lumber was compared to that from natural stands currently being processed in eastern Canada. On average, the plantation-grown black spruce lumber stiffness was 28.9% lower than that of lumber from the natural stands. As a result, a high percentage of the plantation-grown lumber did not meet the bending design values. However, the percentage of the compliance to the design values tended to increase with increasing initial stand density. This article discusses the possible causes for the significantly lower bending properties of the plantation-grown lumber, and potential solutions for increasing lumber properties and the percentage of the compliance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".