Effect of tree, stand, and site variables on the allometry of <i>Eucalyptus globulus</i> tree biomass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to develop a system of compatible equations to estimate eucalyptus ( Eucalyptus globulus Labill.) tree aboveground biomass and biomass of tree components for forest biomass prediction across regional boundaries. Data came from 441 trees sampled on several sites (99 and 14 plots in planted and coppice regenerated stands, respectively) representative of the eucalyptus expansion area in Portugal. The system of equations, simultaneously fitted using seemingly unrelated regression, was based on the allometric model for the biomass of stem wood, stem bark, leaves, and branches. Total aboveground biomass was expressed as the sum of the biomass of the respective tree components. The study allowed the following conclusions: (i) there is a significant increase in the predictive ability of the models that include height (stem components) or crown length (crown components) as an additional predictor to diameter at 1.30 m; (ii) there is a clear effect of the stage of development of the stand on tree allometry, with a decreasing pattern of the allometric constants; (iii) no effect of stand density, site index or climate on tree allometry was found; and (iv) for practical purposes, the same system of equations can be used for planted and coppice regenerated 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".