Small Sample Sizes Yield Biased Allometric Equations in Temperate Forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate quantification of forest carbon stocks is required for constraining the global carbon cycle and its impacts on climate. The accuracies of forest biomass maps are inherently dependent on the accuracy of the field biomass estimates used to calibrate models, which are generated with allometric equations. Here, we provide a quantitative assessment of the sensitivity of allometric parameters to sample size in temperate forests, focusing on the allometric relationship between tree height and crown radius. We use LiDAR remote sensing to isolate between 10,000 to more than 1,000,000 tree height and crown radius measurements per site in six U.S. forests. We find that fitted allometric parameters are highly sensitive to sample size, producing systematic overestimates of height. We extend our analysis to biomass through the application of empirical relationships from the literature, and show that given the small sample sizes used in common allometric equations for biomass, the average site-level biomass bias is ~+70% with a standard deviation of 71%, ranging from -4% to +193%. These findings underscore the importance of increasing the sample sizes used for allometric equation generation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".