Multi‐decade tree mortality in temperate old‐growth forests of Europe and North America: Non‐equilibrial dynamics and species‐individualistic response to disturbance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Old‐growth, mesic temperate forests are often assumed to be structured by gap‐phase processes, resulting in quasi‐equilibrial long‐term dynamics. This assumption influences management focused on simulation of natural disturbance dynamics and is embedded in most models of forest successional dynamics. We use multi‐decade monitoring of permanent plots in old‐growth forests to assess demographic assumptions directly with respect to tree mortality rates. Location Sixteen sites in mesic, temperate old‐growth forests in eastern North America and Europe with multi‐decade monitoring. Time period Variable across sites, spanning c. 20–78 years from 1936 to 2014. Major taxa studied Tree species of late‐successional, cool‐temperate forests of Europe and eastern North America. Methods We calculated and compared the annualized mortality rates (m), with confidence intervals, by species, size class and measurement interval, for tree species of sufficient abundance. Results Retrospective analysis shows dynamic and diverse demographic properties across populations and sites. Stand‐scale mortality rates of 0.7–2.5%/year average higher than previous estimates for old‐growth temperate forests. Variations among species, over time and among size classes, suggest that gap‐phase models are inadequate to explain stand dynamics, implying instead that rare disturbance events of moderate severity have long‐lasting effects in old‐growth forests and that indirect anthropogenic influences affect old‐growth, unlogged forests. Main conclusions Multi‐decade baseline data, essential for understanding community assembly and long‐term dynamics in these “slow systems,” are rare and poorly integrated. Our analysis demonstrates the value of the few long‐term, “legacy” data sets. Results suggest that differences in life history interact with complex disturbance histories, resulting in non‐equilibrial dynamics in old‐growth temperate tree communities, and that changes in disturbance patterns through anthropogenic climate change might, therefore, be an important driver of ecosystem change.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".