MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2384950079 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1501639

Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics

2016· article· en· W2384950079 on OpenAlexaff
Robin L. Chazdon, Eben N. Broadbent, Danaë M. A. Rozendaal, Frans Bongers, Angélica M. Almeyda Zambrano, T. Mitchell Aide, Patricia Balvanera, Justin M. Becknell, Vanessa Boukili, Pedro H. S. Brancalion, Dylan Craven, Jarcilene Silva de Almeida‐Cortez, George A. L. Cabral, Ben de Jong, Julie S. Denslow, Daisy H. Dent, Saara J. DeWalt, Juan Manuel Dupuy, Sandra M. Durán, Mário M. Espírito‐Santo, María Fandiño, Ricardo G. César, Jefferson S. Hall, José Luis Hernández‐Stefanoni, Catarina C. Jakovac, André Braga Junqueira, Deborah Kennard, Susan G. Letcher, Madelon Lohbeck, Miguel Martı́nez-Ramos, Paulo Massoca, Jorge A. Meave, Rita C. G. Mesquita, Francisco Mora, Rodrigo Muñoz, Robert Muscarella, Yule Roberta Ferreira Nunes, Susana Ochoa‐Gaona, Edith Orihuela-Belmonte, Marielos Peña‐Claros, Eduardo A. Pérez‐García, Daniel Piotto, Jennifer S. Powers, Jorge Rodríguez‐Velázquez, Eunice Romero, Jorge Ruíz, Juan Saldarriaga, Arturo Sánchez‐Azofeifa, Naomi B. Schwartz, Marc K. Steininger, Nathan G. Swenson, María Uriarte, Michiel van Breugel, Hans van der Wal, Maria das Dores Magalhães Veloso, Hans F. M. Vester, Ima Célia Guimarães Vieira, G. Bruce Williamson, Lourens Poorter

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Regina
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoSeventh Framework ProgrammeNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTropicsCarbon sequestrationRegeneration (biology)Tropical forestEnvironmental scienceAgroforestryTropical climateNatural regenerationLatin AmericansBiologyEcologyCarbon dioxide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regrowth of tropical secondary forests following complete or nearly complete removal of forest vegetation actively stores carbon in aboveground biomass, partially counterbalancing carbon emissions from deforestation, forest degradation, burning of fossil fuels, and other anthropogenic sources. We estimate the age and spatial extent of lowland second-growth forests in the Latin American tropics and model their potential aboveground carbon accumulation over four decades. Our model shows that, in 2008, second-growth forests (1 to 60 years old) covered 2.4 million km(2) of land (28.1% of the total study area). Over 40 years, these lands can potentially accumulate a total aboveground carbon stock of 8.48 Pg C (petagrams of carbon) in aboveground biomass via low-cost natural regeneration or assisted regeneration, corresponding to a total CO2 sequestration of 31.09 Pg CO2. This total is equivalent to carbon emissions from fossil fuel use and industrial processes in all of Latin America and the Caribbean from 1993 to 2014. Ten countries account for 95% of this carbon storage potential, led by Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela. We model future land-use scenarios to guide national carbon mitigation policies. Permitting natural regeneration on 40% of lowland pastures potentially stores an additional 2.0 Pg C over 40 years. Our study provides information and maps to guide national-level forest-based carbon mitigation plans on the basis of estimated rates of natural regeneration and pasture abandonment. Coupled with avoided deforestation and sustainable forest management, natural regeneration of second-growth forests provides a low-cost mechanism that yields a high carbon sequestration potential with multiple benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations719
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207