Climate-sensitive models of tree mortality based on lifetime analysis and irregular permanent-plot remeasurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change has driven forest growth modellers to develop different climate sensitivity implementations (CSIs) for their models. Among others, a model can rely on annual climate variables or average climate variables, such as 30-year normals. The novelty of this study was to develop a framework based on lifetime analysis to enable annual or average CSI in empirical models of tree mortality. Using this framework, we compared models of individual tree mortality based on an annual CSI with similar models relying on two average CSIs, one using interval-averaged climate variables, and the other, 30-year normals. We fitted these models to permanent-plot data of eight species in Ontario and tested the effects of summer and winter temperature as well as spring and summer precipitation in the models. Our results showed that the annual CSI was not superior to the average CSIs, but could be a valid alternative for some species. Warmer winter temperature was detrimental to the survival of Betula papyrifera, Picea glauca, and Pinus strobus, whereas greater spring and summer precipitation resulted in greater mortality occurrence for Picea mariana, Pinus banksiana, and Populus tremuloides. In most cases, the effects of climate variables were contrary to our initial hypotheses. We conclude that the effects of climate on tree mortality occurrence interact with other factors such as species distribution and ecophysiology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".