MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393216053 · doi:10.15684/formath.23.001

Effects of Elevation, Stand Density, and Inter-Tree Competition on Tree Sizes, Vulnerability, and Health of Planted <i>Zelkova serrata</i> and <i>Quercus glauca</i> in Reforestation

2024· article· en· W4393216053 on OpenAlexaff
Yuan-Chi Li, Ting-Yu Chan, Tzeng Yih Lam, Shing-Wang Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueFORMATH · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuercus serrataCompetition (biology)BiologyTree (set theory)BotanyHorticultureForestryMathematicsGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taiwan has a long history of reforestation due to land degradation. However, there is a lack of understanding of how tree species grow on reclaimed lands. This study looked at tree sizes, vulnerability, and health of economically important Zelkova serrata and Quercus glauca trees planted on reclaimed agricultural lands. Thirteen former agricultural sites with trees of six to seven years old were sampled along the elevation from 107 to 2514 m above sea level. Results showed that increasing inter-tree competition reduced tree sizes and health and increased vulnerability to damage, primarily wind, for both tree species. For example, a 1 m2 ha−1 increase in inter-tree competition was associated with a 5.68 cm decrease in tree diameter, a 3.21 m decrease in tree height, a 59.31% decrease in tree health for Z. serrata. Responses of Z. serrata to inter-tree competition were generally stronger than those of Q. glauca. Elevation generally reduced tree sizes of both species and reduced health of only Z. serrata trees. Stand density has minimal effects on the tree attributes of both species. Our study suggests that Z. serrata responds strongly to inter-tree competition leading to stratification of stand structures, which agrees with past studies showing Z. serrata developing different growth strategies. Q. glauca could resist inter-tree competition so that suppressed trees could compete with its neighbors. This supports past observations that Q. glauca could persist under suppression. Our findings of the elevation caution planting both tree species outside their native habitat ranges, which was not shown before.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFORMATHSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207