Data from: Effects of stand age, richness and density on productivity in subtropical forests in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Forest productivity may be determined not only by biodiversity but also by environmental factors and stand structure attributes. However, the relative importance of these factors in determining productivity is still controversial for subtropical forests. 2. Based on a large dataset from 600 permanent forest inventory plots across subtropical China, we examined the relationship between biodiversity and forest productivity and tested whether stand structural attributes (stand density in terms of trees per ha, age and tree size) and environmental factors (climate and site conditions) had larger effects on productivity. Furthermore, we quantified the relative importance of environmental factors, stand structure and diversity in determining forest productivity. 3. Diversity, together with stand structure and site conditions, regulated the variability in forest productivity. The relationship between diversity and forest productivity did not vary along environmental gradients. Stand density and age were more important modulators of forest productivity than diversity. 4. Synthesis. Diversity had significant and positive effects on productivity in species-rich subtropical forests, but the effects of stand density and age were also important. Our work highlights that while biodiversity conservation is often important, the regulation of stand structure can be even more important to maintain high productivity in subtropical forests.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
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".