A simulation-based approach to a near-optimal thinning strategy: allowing harvesting times to be determined for individual trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As various methods for precision inventories, including light detection and ranging (LiDAR), are becoming increasingly common in forestry, planning at the individual-tree level is becoming more viable. In this study, we present a method for finding the optimal thinning times for individual trees from an economic perspective. The method utilizes a forest growth model based on individual trees that has been fitted to Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) stands in northern Sweden. We find that the optimal management strategy is to thin from above (i.e., harvesting trees that are larger than average). We compare our optimal strategy with a conventional management strategy and find that the optimal strategy results in approximately 20% higher land expectation value. Furthermore, we find that for the optimal strategy, increasing the discount rate will reduce the final harvest age and increase the basal area reduction. Decreasing the cost to initiate a thinning (e.g., machinery-related transportation costs) increases the number of thinnings and delays the first thinning.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".