Impact of competitor species composition on predicting diameter growth and survival rates of Douglas-fir trees in southwestern Oregon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mixed conifer and hardwood stands in southwestern Oregon were studied to explore the hypothesis that competition effects on individual-tree growth and survival will differ according to the species comprising the competition measure. Likewise, it was hypothesized that competition measures should extrapolate best if crown-based surrogates are given preference over diameter-based (basal area based) surrogates. Diameter growth and probability of survival were modeled for individual Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) trees growing in pure stands. Alternative models expressing one-sided and two-sided competition as a function of either basal area or crown structure were then applied to other plots in which Douglas-fir was mixed with other conifers and (or) hardwood species. Crown-based variables outperformed basal area based variables as surrogates for one-sided competition in both diameter growth and survival probability, regardless of species composition. In contrast, two-sided competition was best represented by total basal area of competing trees. Surrogates reflecting differences in crown morphology among species relate more closely to the mechanics of competition for light and, hence, facilitate extrapolation to species combinations for which no observations are available.
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".