MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128560567 · doi:10.5194/bg-18-4059-2021

The motion of trees in the wind: a data synthesis

2021· article· en· W3128560567 on OpenAlexafffund
Toby Jackson, Sarab S. Sethi, Ebba Dellwik, Nikolas Angelou, Amanda Bunce, Tim van Emmerik, Marine Duperat, Jean‐Claude Ruel, Axel Wellpott, Skip J. Van Bloem, Alexis Achim, Brian Kane, Dominick M. Ciruzzi, Steven P. Loheide, Ken James, Daniel C. Burcham, John R. Moore, Dirk Schindler, Sven Kolbe, Kilian Wiegmann, Mark Rudnicki, Victor J. Lieffers, J. S. Selker, Andrew V. Gougherty, Tim Newson, Andrew K. Koeser, Jason W. Miesbauer, R. M. Samelson, Jim Wagner, Anthony R. Ambrose, Andreas Detter, Steffen Rust, David A. Coomes, Barry Gardiner

Bibliographic record

VenueBiogeosciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of AlbertaUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsMotion (physics)Environmental scienceMeteorologyGeographyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Interactions between wind and trees control energy exchanges between the atmosphere and forest canopies. This energy exchange can lead to the widespread damage of trees, and wind is a key disturbance agent in many of the world's forests. However, most research on this topic has focused on conifer plantations, where risk management is economically important, rather than broadleaf forests, which dominate the forest carbon cycle. This study brings together tree motion time-series data to systematically evaluate the factors influencing tree responses to wind loading, including data from both broadleaf and coniferous trees in forests and open environments. We found that the two most descriptive features of tree motion were (a) the fundamental frequency, which is a measure of the speed at which a tree sways and is strongly related to tree height, and (b) the slope of the power spectrum, which is related to the efficiency of energy transfer from wind to trees. Intriguingly, the slope of the power spectrum was found to remain constant from medium to high wind speeds for all trees in this study. This suggests that, contrary to some predictions, damping or amplification mechanisms do not change dramatically at high wind speeds, and therefore wind damage risk is related, relatively simply, to wind speed. Conifers from forests were distinct from broadleaves in terms of their response to wind loading. Specifically, the fundamental frequency of forest conifers was related to their size according to the cantilever beam model (i.e. vertically distributed mass), whereas broadleaves were better approximated by the simple pendulum model (i.e. dominated by the crown). Forest conifers also had a steeper slope of the power spectrum. We interpret these finding as being strongly related to tree architecture; i.e. conifers generally have a simple shape due to their apical dominance, whereas broadleaves exhibit a much wider range of architectures with more dominant crowns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations70
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiogeosciencesSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207