A comparison of mortality rates between top height trees and average site trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Although comparisons between methods of selecting trees for site index estimates are well documented in the literature, little is known on mortality rates of different canopy tree cohorts used for that purpose. • This study was initiated to test the hypothesis that the mortality rates of top height trees are lower than those of codominants only or a combination of codominant and dominant trees. To test this hypothesis, we used records from a network of permanent sample plots in Québec and studied the fate of different cohorts of site trees for five different species. • Our results did not show clear evidence of lower mortality rates for top height trees. Instead we found that depending on the species, top height trees have lower ( Populus tremuloides, Pinus banksiana ), higher ( Picea mariana, Abies balsamea ) or equal mortality rates ( Betula papyrifera ) than codominant trees or codominant and dominant trees combined. • These results suggest a tendency for shade intolerant species to maintain lower top height tree mortality rates over time when compared to shade tolerant species. In the latter case, it is also shown that spruce budworm epidemics ( Choristoneura fumiferana ) did not change the pattern of mortality rates of site trees of A. balsamea .
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".