Evaluating effects of silvicultural treatments on forest canopy structure outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional forest management can homogenize forests, and management strategies that can restore complexity and promote adaptive capacity to global change are needed. However, effects of different silvicultural practices on complexity of forest structural components, such as the canopy, are not well understood mechanistically. We conducted a coupled field and simulation-modeling study to evaluate: (1) how near-term effects of silviculture on canopy structure and complexity differ across treatment types and (2) how outcomes of common silvicultural treatments compare to a spectrum of randomly implemented removals. Thirteen different silvicultural treatments replicated across 12 study plots were simulated within 3D models derived from terrestrial lidar data. Treatment types often differed in their multi-dimensional structural outcomes, including vertical heterogeneity and canopy structural complexity. Moderate intensity thinning treatments that preferentially removed smaller trees increased near-term canopy structural complexity, while diameter-limit cutting often reduced complexity. Silvicultural treatments collectively produced a wide range of residual canopy conditions; however, variability among structural outcomes within individual treatment types or categories was limited relative to the range of possible outcomes from random removals. Most treatments induced shifts in canopy structure outside the spectrum of random removal, suggesting ample space for adapting management to promote forest heterogeneity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".