MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781261949 · doi:10.1093/jpe/rtx071

Environmental landscape determinants of maximum forest canopy height of boreal forests

2017· article· en· W2781261949 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lingfeng Mao, Christopher W. Bater, J. John Stadt, Barry White, Piotr Tompalski, Nicholas C. Coops, Scott E. Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Ecology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Agriculture and ForestryAlberta Environment and Parks
KeywordsTaigaCanopyGeographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyTree canopyBorealAgroforestryForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canopy height is a key driver of forest biodiversity and carbon cycling. Accurate estimates of canopy height are needed for assessing mechanisms relating to ecological patterns and processes of tree height limitations. At global scales forest canopy height patterns are largely controlled by climate, while local variation at fine scales is due to differences in disturbance history and local patterns in environmental conditions. The relative effect of local environmental drivers on canopy height is poorly understood partly due to gaps in data on canopy height and methods for examining limiting factors. Here, we used airborne laser scanning (ALS) data on vegetation structure of boreal forests to examine the effects of environmental factors on potential maximum forest canopy height. Relationships between maximum canopy height from ALS measures and environmental variables were examined to assess factors limiting tree height. Specifically, we used quantile regression at the 0.90 quantile to relate maximum canopy height with environmental characteristics of climate (i.e. mean annual temperature [MAT] and mean annual precipitation), terrain (i.e. slope) and depth-to-water (DTW) across a 33000 km2 multiple use boreal forest landscape in northeast Alberta, Canada. Maximum canopy height was positively associated with MAT, terrain slope and terrain-derived DTW, collectively explaining 33.2% of the variation in heights. The strongest explanatory variable was DTW explaining 26% of canopy height variation with peatland forests having naturally shorter maximum canopy heights, but also more sites currently at their maximum potential height. In contrast, the most productive forests (i.e. mesic to xeric upland forests) had the fewest sites at their potential maximum height, illustrating the effects of long-term forest management, wildfires and general anthropogenic footprints on reducing the extent and abundance of older, taller forest habitat in Alberta’s boreal forest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant EcologySame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207