ArticleEcology and evolution2016
A comparison between data requirements and availability for calibrating predictive ecological models for lowland UK woodlands: learning new tricks from old trees.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An overview of agent-based models in plant biology and ecology.Annals of botany · 2020Review
- Will natural resistance result in populations of ash trees remaining in British woodlands after a century of ash dieback disease?Royal Society open science · 2019Article
- Individual-Based Modeling Approach to Assessment of the Impacts of Landscape Complexity and Climate on Dispersion, Detectability and Fate of Incipient Medfly Populations.Frontiers in physiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Woodlands provide valuable ecosystem services, and it is important to understand their dynamics. To predict the way in which these might change, we need process-based predictive ecological models, but these are necessarily very data intensive. We tested the ability of existing datasets to provide the parameters necessary to instantiate a well-used forest model (SORTIE) for a well-studied woodland (Wytham Woods). Only five of SORTIE's 16 equations describing different aspects of the life history and behavior of individual trees could be parameterized without additional data collection. One age class - seedlings - was completely missed as they are shorter than the height at which Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) is measured. The mensuration of trees has changed little in the last 400 years (focussing almost exclusively on DBH) despite major changes in the nature of the source of value obtained from trees over this time. This results in there being insufficient data to parameterize process-based models in order to meet the societal demand for ecological prediction. We do not advocate ceasing the measurement of DBH, but we do recommend that those concerned with tree mensuration consider whether additional measures of trees could be added to their data collection protocols. We also see advantages in integrating techniques such as ground-based LIDAR or remote sensing techniques with long-term datasets to both preserve continuity with what has been performed in the past and to expand the range of measurements made.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.