Improved stand structure characterization from nested plot designs in the Spanish National Forest Inventory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract National forest inventories, in which trees are often mapped within the plots, provide a tool for the quantification of large-scale forest structure since they cover all forest areas. Many National Forest Inventories follow a nested design in order to reduce the sampling effort for smaller trees. We propose and test a methodology that allows the spatial pattern of trees, species mingling and size differentiation to be characterized using the nearest neighbour indices and second-order moment functions from nested plot data. The nearest neighbour indices and second-order moment functions for the actual distribution are compared with simulations of the appropriate null model: spatial randomness for spatial pattern characterization or spatial independence for species mingling and size differentiation. The proposed method consists of constraining the null model to fit the nested plot design. For the purposes of the study, we simulated 120 plots and used 26 real plots located in pure and mixed stands in Central Spain, for which a complete census with detailed information about trees was available. The nested design used in the Spanish National Forest Inventory (SNFI) plots was simulated to test the performance, taking the complete census as reference. Despite of the limited accuracy for some structural measures, the proposed method based on nested design data performed better for most of the nearest neighbour indices and second-order moment functions than the strategy currently used in the SNFI for structure assessment in a subsample of SNFI plots, consisting of mapping the 20 trees closest to the plot centre. Nearest neighbour indices provided greater accuracy for species mingling assessment than second-order moment functions, whereas the opposite occurred when describing spatial pattern and size differentiation. The methodology proposed provides the first insight into the characterization of forest structure in nested designs although more evaluations are required for different forest types.
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 | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".