Belowground and aboveground biomass in young postfire lodgepole pine forests of contrasting tree density
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As much as 40% of live biomass in coniferous forests is located belowground, yet the effect of tree density on biomass allocation is poorly understood. We developed allometric equations using traditional harvesting techniques to estimate coarse root biomass for [Formula: see text]13-year-old postfire lodgepole pine trees (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.). We then used these equations, plus estimates of fine root and aboveground biomass, to estimate total tree biomass and belowground to aboveground biomass ratios in young postfire lodgepole pine stands with a wide range of tree densities. Belowground biomass allocation increased with tree density, but the increase was largely determined by inherent differences associated with tree size, not competition. Stand biomass in trees ranged from 46 to 5529 kg·ha 1 belowground, from 176 to 9400 kg·ha 1 aboveground, and from 222 to 13 685 kg·ha 1 for total biomass. For individual trees, the ratio of belowground to total biomass declined with tree size from 0.44 at a basal diameter of 0.5 cm to 0.11 at a basal diameter of 8 cm. This shift in individual tree allocation caused the proportion of total stand biomass in belowground tissues to increase from 19% in low-density stands with larger trees to 31% in high-density stands with small trees.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it