How to predict tree death from inventory data — lessons from a systematic assessment of European tree mortality models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The future development of forest ecosystems depends critically on tree mortality. However, the suitability of empirical mortality algorithms for extrapolation in space or time remains untested. We systematically analyzed the performance of 46 inventory-based mortality models available from the literature using nearly 80 000 independent records from 54 strict forest reserves in Germany and Switzerland covering 11 species. Mortality rates were predicted with higher accuracy if covariates for tree growth and (or) competition at the individual level were included and if models were applied within the same ecological zone. In contrast, classification of dead vs. living trees was only improved by growth variables. Management intensity in the calibration stands, as well as the census interval and size of the calibration datasets, did not influence model performance. Consequently, future approaches should make use of tree growth and competition at the level of individual trees. Mortality algorithms for applications over a restricted spatial extent and under current climate should be calibrated based on datasets from the same region, even if they are small. To obtain models with wide applicability and enhanced climatic sensitivity, the spatial variability of mortality should be addressed explicitly by considering environmental influences using data of high temporal resolution covering large ecological gradients. Finally, such models need to be validated and documented thoroughly.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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".