POSSIBILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF USING HISTORIC PROVENANCE TESTS TO INFER FOREST SPECIES GROWTH RESPONSES TO CLIMATE CHANGE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract. Under projected changes in global climate, the growth and survival of existing forests will depend on their ability to adjust physiologically in response to environmental change. Quantifying their capacity to adjust and whether the response is species‐ or population‐specific is important to guide forest management strategies. New analyses of historic provenance tests data are yielding relevant insights about these responses. Yet, differences between the objectives used to design the experiments and current objectives impose limitations to what can be learned from them. Our objectives are (i) to discuss the possibilities and limitations of using such data to quantify growth responses to changes in climate and (ii) to present a modeling approach that creates a species‐ and population‐specific model. We illustrate the modeling approach for Larix occidentalis Nutt. We conclude that the reanalysis of historic provenance tests data can lead to the identification of species that have population‐specific growth responses to changes in climate, provide estimates of optimum transfer distance for populations and species, and provide estimates of growth changes under different climate change scenarios. Using mixed‐effects modeling techniques is a sound statistical approach to overcome some of the limitations of the data.
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 | 0.045 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".