MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037359095 · doi:10.1093/treephys/26.6.819

Biomass and biomass change in lodgepole pine stands in Alberta

2006· article· en· W2037359095 on OpenAlexafffundabout
R. A. Monserud, Shengxiang Huang, Yuqing Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueTree Physiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Alberta
FundersPacific Northwest Research StationForest Resource Improvement Association of Alberta
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)Pinus contortaEnvironmental scienceForestryBark (sound)Forest inventoryRange (aeronautics)MathematicsGeographyForest managementAgronomyBiologyAgroforestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe methods and results for broad-scale estimation and mapping of forest biomass for the Canadian province of Alberta. Differences over successive decades provided an estimate of biomass change. Over 1500 permanent sample plots (PSP) were analyzed from across the range of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia Engelm.), the major forest tree species of Alberta. The PSP network is densest in stands aged between 70 and 100 years and is well-represented by stands of all ages to 150 years of age. Stand biomass (Mg ha(-1)) was estimated for each PSP plot as the sum of the respective biomass components for each tree (live and standing dead). The biomass components for live trees were stem, bark, branches, foliage and roots. The components for standing dead trees excluded foliage. Equations from previous biomass studies were used for biomass component estimation. Biomass estimates of additional non-tree components were attempted, but without much success. Biomass of the soil organic layer was estimated once on 452 PSPs and a mean estimate of total dead fuels on the ground (28.4 Mg ha(-1)) was available only for the entire distribution of lodgepole pine. However, values of these two components were essentially constant over time and therefore did not alter the analysis or conclusions obtained by analyzing total tree biomass alone. We then used this spatial network of 1549 plots as the basis for mapping biomass across Alberta. Mapping methods were based on Australian National University SPLINe (ANUSPLIN) software, Hutchinson's thin-plate smoothing spline in four dimensions (latitude, longitude, elevation and biomass). Total tree biomass (mean = 172 Mg ha(-1)) was dominated by stem biomass (mean = 106 Mg ha(-1)), which was an order of magnitude greater than the mean estimates for the bark (11 Mg ha(-1)), branch (12 Mg ha(-1)) and foliage (12 Mg ha(-1)) components. A close relationship was found between total tree biomass and stand stem volume (R(2) = 0.992 with n = 3585; note that volume and biomass were calculated independently). We compared total tree biomass for two decades, the 1980s and the 1990s. After correcting for changes in harvest removals over time, the mean change in total biomass was positive (0.99 Mg ha(-1) year(-1)) and differed significantly from zero (n = 421; P < 0.001). Estimates ranged from -13.9 to 8.0 Mg ha(-1) year(-1). The heart of the lodgepole pine distribution (primarily the Foothills subregions) showed an increase in biomass, whereas isolated pockets of lodgepole pine in the boreal northern subregion indicated a decline in biomass.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTree PhysiologySame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207