Growth response functions improved by accounting for nonclimatic site effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growth response functions (GRFs) that relate the growth of a population to the climate of the sites in which it is tested are gaining attention for their ability to predict impacts of climate change on tree growth. However, nonclimatic site to site variation introduces error into GRFs. Using data from a large lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.) provenance test in British Columbia and the Yukon, Canada, a technique is presented that accounts for the effect of nonclimatic variation in GRFs. The mean height of the “local” provenances at each test site was used to predict “site height” from site climate variables in multiple regression. Residuals from the site height equation provided an index of the nonclimatic effect for each site and were included as a covariate in quadratic GRFs that related provenance height at each test site to mean annual temperature at each test site. Inclusion of the nonclimatic index in the model resulted in a moderate or large displacement of GRFs for 25% of the provenances, while increasing mean R2values for 138 of 140 provenances and decreasing the root mean squared error for 113 of 140 provenances. These results suggest that inclusion of the nonclimatic index in GRF models could substantially affect height predictions for some provenances and reduce prediction error for most provenances.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".