Linking climate, gross primary productivity, and site index across forests of the western United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing forest productivity is important for developing effective management regimes and predicting future growth. Despite some important limitations, the most common means for quantifying forest stand-level potential productivity is site index (SI). Another measure of productivity is gross primary production (GPP). In this paper, SI is compared with GPP estimates obtained from 3-PG and NASA’s MODIS satellite. Models were constructed that predict SI and both measures of GPP from climate variables. Results indicated that a nonparametric model with two climate-related predictor variables explained over 68% and 76% of the variation in SI and GPP, respectively. The relationship between GPP and SI was limited (R 2 of 36%–56%), while the relationship between GPP and climate (R 2 of 76%–91%) was stronger than the one between SI and climate (R 2 of 68%–78%). The developed SI model was used to predict SI under varying expected climate change scenarios. The predominant trend was an increase of 0–5 m in SI, with some sites experiencing reductions of up to 10 m. The developed model can predict SI across a broad geographic scale and into the future, which statistical growth models can use to represent the expected effects of climate change more effectively.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".