Analytical chain documents effectiveness of the Composite Site Productivity Index in assessing forest productivity, highlighting implications for forest management.
Companion analytical chain deposit for the Composite Site Productivity Index (CSPI) data release at Zenodo concept DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20515034. This deposit contains the manuscript drafts, intermediate result tables, pipeline scripts, outreach materials, and documentation supporting the v0.10g manuscript "Beyond site index: FIA's own classification system disagrees with site index but agrees with a multi-dimensional composite of forest productivity at 30 m across the conterminous United States" (in revision at Forest Ecology and Management). Key empirical findings: FIA's seven-class site productivity classification (SITECLCD) tracks biomass growth (BGI alone OOB R² = 0.808) more closely than site index (ESI alone OOB R² = 0.751). Three independent traditional site index measurements (raw FIA SICOND, NRCS SSURGO coforprod, Cieszewski-Bailey GADA refit) all carry moderate biomass-growth structure; the raw SICOND × ESI = -0.08 correlation is a base-age Simpson paradox. A hierarchical EPA Level I/II/III ecoregion-weighted composite paired with the equal-weight composite increases SITECLCD recovery from OOB R² = 0.812 to 0.832 (+0.020, 95% CI non-overlapping). Includes multidim_v3, v4, v5_L3, v5_ML, and v5_ML2 result CSVs, the corresponding R and Python pipeline scripts, the v0.10g manuscript draft plus the FEM combined submission docx (4 MB with 11 figures), four-document outreach package, and stress test plus reorganization documentation. Source repository at holoros/cspi-conus.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aaron R. Weiskittel (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: