Widespread slow growth of acquisitive tree species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trees are an important carbon sink as they accumulate biomass through photosynthesis1. Identifying tree species that grow fast is therefore commonly considered to be essential for effective climate change mitigation through forest planting. Although species characteristics are key information for plantation design and forest management, field studies often fail to detect clear relationships between species functional traits and tree growth2. Here, by consolidating four independent datasets and classifying the acquisitive and conservative species based on their functional trait values, we show that acquisitive tree species, which are supposedly fast-growing species, generally grow slowly in field conditions. This discrepancy between the current paradigm and field observations is explained by the interactions with environmental conditions that influence growth. Acquisitive species require moist mild climates and fertile soils, conditions that are generally not met in the field. By contrast, conservative species, which are supposedly slow-growing species, show generally higher realized growth due to their ability to tolerate unfavourable environmental conditions. In general, conservative tree species grow more steadily than acquisitive tree species in non-tropical forests. We recommend planting acquisitive tree species in areas where they can realize their fast-growing potential. In other regions, where environmental stress is higher, conservative tree species have a larger potential to fix carbon in their biomass. Under field conditions, acquisitive tree species generally grow slowly, whereas conservative species show generally higher realized growth, owing to their ability to tolerate unfavourable environmental conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".