The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Growth-dependent tree mortality models based on tree rings
Abstract
Mortality is a crucial element of population dynamics. However, tree mortality is not well understood, particularly at the individual level. The objectives of this study were to (i) determine growth patterns (growth levels and growth trends) over different time windows that can be used to discriminate between dead and living Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) trees, (ii) optimize the selection of growth variables in logistic mortality models, and (iii) assess the impact of competition on recent growth in linear regression models. The logistic mortality model that we developed for mature stands classified an average of nearly 80% of the 119 trees from one site correctly as being dead or alive. While more than 50% of the variability of recent growth of living trees can be attributed to the influence of competition, this percentage was only 25% for standing dead trees. The predictive power of the logistic mortality model was validated successfully at two additional sites, where 29 of 41 (71%) and 34 of 42 (81%) trees were classified correctly, respectively. This supports the generality of the mortality model for Norway spruce in subalpine forests of the Alps. We conclude that growth trends in addition to the commonly used growth level significantly improve the prediction of growth-dependent tree mortality of Norway spruce.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models
FIELDING, A. H., & BELL, J. F. (1997) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892997000088 · Cited by 6,956
Cited by
An individual-based process model to simulate landscape-scale forest ecosystem dynamics
Seidl, R., Rammer, W., Scheller, R. M., & Spies, T. A. (2012) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.02.015 · Cited by 309
Walker, A. P., De Kauwe, M. G., Medlyn, B. E., Zaehle, S., Iversen, C. M., Asao, S., Guenet, B., Harper, A., Hickler, T., Hungate, B. A., et al. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-08348-1 · Cited by 107
Metadata
- Authors
- Bigler, C., & Bugmann, H.
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Forest Research
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 2003-02-01
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 210-221
- ISSN
- 0045-5067 (ISSN-L)
- 1208-6037
- OpenAlex
- W2009323142
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Growth-dependent tree mortality models based on tree rings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1139/x02-180
- The paper
- Bigler, C., & Bugmann, H. (2003). Growth-dependent tree mortality models based on tree rings. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. https://doi.org/10.1139/x02-180
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.