Predicting tree mortality from diameter growth: a comparison of maximum likelihood and Bayesian approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecologists and foresters have long noted a link between tree growth rate and mortality, and recent work suggests that interspecific differences in low growth tolerance is a key force shaping forest structure. Little information is available, however, on the growth-mortality relationship for most species. We present three methods for estimating growth-mortality functions from readily obtainable field data. All use annual mortality rates and the recent growth rates of living and dead individuals. Annual mortality rates are estimated using both survival analysis and a Bayesian approach. Growth rates are obtained from increment cores. Growth-mortality functions are fitted using two parametric approaches and a nonparametric approach. The three methods are compared using bootstrapped confidence intervals and likelihood ratio tests. For two example species, Acer rubrum L. and Cornus florida L., growth-mortality functions indicate a substantial difference in the two species' abilities to withstand slow growth. Both survival analysis and Bayesian estimates of mortality rates lead to similar growth-mortality functions, with the Bayesian approach providing a means to overcome the absence of long-term census data. In fitting growth-mortality functions, the nonparametric approach reveals that inflexibility in parametric methods can lead to errors in estimating mortality risk at low growth. We thus suggest that nonparametric fits be used as a tool for assessing parametric models.
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 | 0.027 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".