Understanding Tree-to-Tree Variations in Stone Pine (Pinus pinea L.) Cone Production Using Terrestrial Laser Scanner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kernels found in stone pinecones are of great economic value, often surpassing timber income for most forest owners. Visually evaluating cone production on standing trees is challenging since the cones are located in the sun-exposed part of the crown, and covered by two vegetative shoots. Very few studies were carried out in evaluating how new remote sensing technologies such as terrestrial laser scanners (TLS) can be used in assessing cone production, or in trying to explain the tree-to-tree variability within a given stand. Using data from 129 trees in 26 plots located in the Spanish Northern Plateau, the gain observed by using TLS data when compared to traditional inventory data in predicting the presence, the number, and the average weight of the cones in an individual tree was evaluated. The models using TLS-derived metrics consistently showed better fit statistics, when compared to models using traditional inventory data pertaining to site and tree levels. Crown dimensions such as projected crown area and crown volume, crown density, and crown asymmetry were the key TLS-derived drivers in understanding the variability in inter-tree cone production. These results underline the importance of crown characteristics in assessing cone production in stone pine. Moreover, as cone production (number of cones and average weight) is higher in crowns with lower density, the use of crown pruning, abandoned over 30 years ago, might be the key to increasing production in combination with stand density management.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".