Modelling seasonal dynamics of secondary growth in R
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The monitoring of seasonal radial growth of woody plants addresses the ultimate question of when, how and why trees grow. Assessing the growth dynamics is important to quantify the effect of environmental drivers and understand how woody species will deal with the ongoing climatic changes. One of the crucial steps in the analyses of seasonal radial growth is to model the dynamics of xylem and phloem formation based on increment measurements on samples taken at relatively short intervals during the growing season. The most common approach is the use of the Gompertz equation, while other approaches, such as general additive models (GAMs) and generalised linear models (GLMs), have also been tested in recent years. For the first time, we explored artificial neural networks with Bayesian regularisation algorithm (BRNNs) and show that this method is easy to use, resistant to overfitting, tends to yield s‐shaped curves and is therefore suitable for deriving temporal dynamics of secondary tree growth. We propose two data processing algorithms that allow more flexible fits. The main result of our work is the XPSgrowth() function implemented in the radial Tree Growth (rTG) R package, that can be used to evaluate and compare three modelling approaches: BRNN, GAM and the Gompertz function. The newly developed function, tested on intra‐seasonal xylem and phloem formation data, has potential applications in many ecological and environmental disciplines where growth is expressed as a function of time. Different approaches were evaluated in terms of prediction error, while fitted curves were visually compared to derive their main characteristics. Our results suggest that there is no single best fitting method, therefore we recommend testing different fitting methods and selection of the optimal one.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.026 |
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".