An individual-based growth and competition model for coastal redwood forest restoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thinning treatments to accelerate coastal redwood forest stand development are in wide application, but managers have yet to identify prescriptions that might best promote Sequoia sempervirens (Lamb. ex D. Don) Endl. (redwood) growth. The creation of successful thinning prescriptions would be aided by identifying the underlying mechanisms governing how individual tree growth responds to competitive environments in coastal redwood forests. We created a spatially explicit individual-based model of tree competition and growth parameterized using surveys of upland redwood forests at Redwood National Park, California. We modeled competition for overstory trees (stems ≥ 20 cm stem diameter at breast height, 1.37 m (dbh)) as growth reductions arising from sizes, distances, and species identity of competitor trees. Our model explained up to half of the variation in individual tree growth, suggesting that neighborhood crowding is an important determinant of growth in this forest type. We used our model to simulate the effects of novel thinning prescriptions (e.g., 40% stand basal area removal) for redwood forest restoration, concluding that these treatments could lead to substantial growth releases, particularly for S. sempervirens. The results of this study, along with continued improvements to our model, will help to determine spacing and species composition that best encourage growth.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".