Tree canopy displacement and neighborhood interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competitive interactions among plants are largely determined by spatial proximity. However, despite their sessile nature, plants have the ability to avoid neighbors by growing towards areas with high resource availability and reduced competition. Because of this flexibility, tree canopies are rarely centered directly above their stem bases and are often displaced. We sought to determine how a tree's competitive neighborhood influences its canopy position. In a 0.6-ha temperate forest plot, all trees greater than 10 cm DBH (n = 225) were measured for basal area, height, canopy depth, and trunk position. Canopy extent relative to trunk base was determined in eight subcardinal directions, and this information was used to reconstruct canopy size, shape, and position. We found that trees positioned their canopies away from large neighbors, close neighbors, and shade-tolerant neighbors. Neighbor size, expressed as basal area or canopy area, was the best indication of a neighbor's importance in determining target tree canopy position. As neighborhood asymmetry increased, the magnitude of canopy displacement increased, and the precision with which canopies avoided neighbors increased. Flexibility in canopy shape and position appears to reduce competition between neighbors, thereby influencing forest community dynamics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".