How random are predictions of forest growth? The importance of weather variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantifying the output uncertainty and tracking down its origins is key to interpreting the results of modelling studies. We performed such an uncertainty analysis on the predictions of forest growth and yield under climate change. We specifically focused on the effect of the interannual climate variability. For that, the climate years in the model input (daily resolution) were randomly shuffled within each 5-year period. In total, 540 simulations (10 parameter sets, nine climate shuffles, three global climate models, and two mitigation scenarios) were made for one growing cycle (80 years) of a Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) forest growing in Peitz, Germany. Our results show that, besides the important effect of the parameter set, the random order of climate years can significantly change results such as basal area and produced volume, as well as the response of these to climate change. We stress that the effect of weather variability should be included in the design of impact model ensembles and in the accompanying uncertainty analysis. We further suggest presenting model results as likelihoods to allow risk assessment. For example, in our study, the likelihood of a decrease in basal area of >10% with no mitigation was 20.4%, whereas the likelihood of an increase >10% was 34.4%.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".