Distribution of cavity trees in midwestern old-growth and second-growth forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used classification and regression tree analysis to determine the primary variables associated with the occurrence of cavity trees and the hierarchical structure among those variables. We applied that information to develop logistic models predicting cavity tree probability as a function of diameter, species group, and decay class. Inventories of cavity abundance in old-growth hardwood forests in Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana found that 811% of snags had at least one visible cavity (as visually detected from the ground; smallest opening [Formula: see text]2 cm diameter), about twice the percentage for live trees. Five percent of live trees and snags had cavities on mature ([Formula: see text]110 years) second-growth plots on timberland in Missouri. Because snags accounted for typically no more than 10% of standing trees on any of these sites, 8085% of cavity trees are living trees. Within the subset of mature and old-growth forests, the presence of cavities was strongly related to tree diameter. Classification and regression tree models indicated that 30 cm diameter at breast height (DBH) was a threshold size useful in distinguishing cavity trees from noncavity trees in the old-growth sample. There were two diameter thresholds in the mature second-growth sample: 18 and 44 cm DBH. Cavity tree probability differed by species group and increased with increasing decay class.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".