The Salem simulator version 2.0: a tool for predicting the productivity of pure and mixed stands and simulating management operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of research suggests mixed-species stands are generally more productive than pure stands. However, this effect of mixture depends on species assemblages and environmental conditions and forest managers often lack tools to assess the potential benefit of shifting from pure to mixed stands. Here we present Salem, a simulator filling this gap. Salem predicts the dynamics of pure and mixed even-aged stands and makes it possible to simulate management operations. Its purpose is to be a decision support tool for forest managers and stakeholders as well as for policy makers. It is also designed to conduct virtual experiments and help answer research questions. In Salem, we parameterised the growth in pure stand of 12 common tree species of Europe and we assessed the effect of mixture on species growth for 24 species pairs (made up of the 12 species mentioned above). Thus, Salem makes it possible to compare the productivity of 36 different pure and mixed stands depending on environmental conditions and user-defined management strategies. Salem is essentially based on the analysis of National Forest Inventory data. A major outcome of this analysis is that we found species mixture most often increases species growth, in particular at the poorest sites. Independently from the simulator, foresters and researchers can also consider using the species-specific models that constitute Salem: the growth models including or excluding mixture effect, the bark models, the diameter distribution models, the circumference-height relationship models, as well as the volume equations for the 12 parameterised species. Salem runs on Windows, Linux, or Mac. Its user-friendly graphical user interface makes it easy to use for non-modellers. Finally, it is distributed under a LGPL license and is therefore free and open source.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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.
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".