Spatially random mortality in old-growth red pine forests of northern Minnesota
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Characterizing the spatial distribution of tree mortality is critical to understanding forest dynamics, but empirical studies on these patterns under old-growth conditions are rare. This rarity is due in part to low mortality rates in old-growth forests, the study of which necessitates long observation periods, and the confounding influence of tree in-growth during such time spans. Here, we studied mortality of red pine ( Pinus resinosa Ait.) in five old-growth stands in Minnesota, USA, demonstrating the use of preexisting information of cohort age structures to account for in-growth after the most recent cohort establishment. Analyses of spatial point patterns, using both Ripley’s K-function and the pair correlation function, showed that tree mortality was essentially a random process, without evidence of contagious mortality patterns that are often expected for old-growth forests. Our analyses further demonstrated in practice that the distribution of dead trees may differ from that of the tree mortality events, which are constrained to occur within the initial distribution, and how mortality patterns can shape the spatial distribution of mature living trees, often attributed to aggregated regeneration patterns. These findings emphasize the need to disentangle the influence of the initial distribution of trees from that of actual tree mortality events.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".