Allometric equations for young northern hardwoods: the importance of age-specific equations for estimating aboveground biomass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimates of aboveground biomass and nutrient stocks are commonly derived using equations that describe tree dimensional relationships. Despite the widespread use of this approach, there is little information about whether equations specific to stand age are necessary for accurate biomass predictions. We developed equations for small trees (2–12 cm diameter) of six species in four young northern hardwood stands. We then compared our equations with equations used frequently in the literature that were developed in mature stands (Whittaker et al. 1974. Ecol. Monogr. 44: 233–252). Our equations for yellow birch ( Betula alleghaniensis Britt.) predicted 11%–120% greater stem wood for individual trees compared with the equations from Whittaker et al. and, on average, 50% greater aboveground yellow birch biomass in the four stands that we studied. Differences were less pronounced for sugar maple ( Acer saccharum Marsh.) and American beech ( Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.); our equations predicted, on average, 9% greater aboveground stand biomass for sugar maple and 3% lower biomass for American beech compared with Whittaker et al. Our results suggest that stand age may be an important factor influencing the aboveground allometry and biomass of small yellow birch trees in these developing northern hardwood stands.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".