MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Linking population genetics and tree height growth models to predict impacts of climate change on forest production

2011· article· en· W2156284642 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory A. O’Neill, Gordon D. Nigh

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Change Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsMinistry of ForestsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changePinus contortaProductivityForest managementPopulationEnvironmental scienceEffects of global warmingEcologyEnvironmental resource managementAgroforestryGeographyGlobal warmingBiologyDemographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Changes to forest growth models used widely in global change research and sustainable forest management are needed to account for expected climate change impacts. We provide a new approach that dynamically merges height–age functions prevalent in forest growth models with transfer functions prevalent in population adaptation research to better represent changes to forest productivity as climates gradually change. Our simulations with data from an extensive provenance test of lodgepole pine ( P inus contorta ) in B ritish C olumbia, C anada, suggest that climate change will reduce production in lodgepole pine forests established today by at least 7–13% at the end of this century – considerably less than most predictions based solely on transfer or response functions, which do not integrate impacts as climate gradually changes. This work illustrates the need for forest productivity models to consider the changing climate in which a population is growing relative to the static climate of its origin. It also demonstrates the value of long‐term provenance trials in assessing the dynamic impact of climate change on forest productivity, and serves as an example of how provenance trials may be exploited in other forest productivity models or other research fields to assess plant responses to climate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Change BiologySame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207