Analyzing the Vertical Distribution of Crown Material in Mixed Stand Composed of Two Temperate Tree Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The material distribution inside tree crowns is difficult to quantify even though it is an important variable in forest management and ecology. The vertical distribution of a relative density index (i.e., vertical profile) of the total, woody, and leafy material at the crown scale were estimated from terrestrial laser scanner (TLS) data on two species, sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) and balsam fir (Abies Balsamea Mill.). An algorithm based on a geometrical approach readily available in the Computree open source platform was used. Beta distributions were then fitted to the vertical profiles and compared to each other. Total and leafy profiles had similar shapes, while woody profiles were different. Thus, the total vertical distribution could be a good proxy for the leaf distribution in the crown. Sugar maple and balsam fir had top heavy and bottom heavy distributions respectively, which can be explained by their respective architectural development. Moreover, the foliage distribution of sugar maples shifted towards the crown base when it was found in mixed stands, when compared to pure stands. The opposite behavior was observed for balsam firs, but less pronounced. According to the shape of the foliage distribution, sugar maple takes advantages from mixture contrarily to balsam fir. From a methodological point of view, we proposed an original approach to separate wood from leaf returns in TLS data while taking into account occlusion. Wood and leaf separation and occlusion problems are two challenging issues for most TLS-based studies in forest ecology.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".