Process-based modelling of tree and stand growth: towards a hierarchical treatment of multiscale processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A generally accepted method has not emerged for managing the different temporal and spatial scales in a forest ecosystem. This paper reviews a hierarchical-modular modelling tradition, with the main focus on individual tree growth throughout the rotation. At this scale, model performance requires (i) realistic long-term dynamic properties, (ii) realistic responses of growth and mortality of competing individuals, and (iii) realistic responses to ecophysio logical inputs. Model development and validation are illustrated through allocation patterns, height growth, and size-related feedbacks. Empirical work to test the approach is reviewed. In this approach, finer scale effects are embedded in parameters calculated using more detailed, interacting modules. This is exemplified by (i) the within-year effect of weather on annual photosynthesis, (ii) the effects of fast soil processes on carbon allocation and photosynthesis, and (iii) the utilization of detailed stem structure to predict wood quality. Prevailing management paradigms are reflected in growth modelling. A shift of emphasis has occurred from productivity in homogeneous canopies towards, e.g., wood quality versus total yield, spatially more explicit models, and growth decline in old-growth forests. The new problems emphasize the hierarchy of the system and interscale interactions, suggesting that the hierarchical-modular approach could prove constructive.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".