Tree allometry for estimation of carbon stocks in African tropical forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tropical forests in Africa store large amounts of carbon and there is an urgent need for accurate methods to estimate this important carbon stock. One method to achieve this is by allometric equations but in many forest ecosystems in Africa these have not been developed. This study combined biomass data of 896 trees from five tropical countries in Africa and eight different sources to develop mixed-species regression equations for estimation of total biomass and height in Dry, Moist and Wet forest types. For estimation of total biomass, allometric equations combining diameter, height and wood density provided the best estimators in the three forest types. Because adding wood density to diameter improved height estimation, we recommend using allometric equations that combine diameter and wood density for height estimations in mixed and diverse tropical forests. Comparing ecosystem-specific (Dry, Moist and Wet) allometric equations to general allometric equations developed with combined data, and also to pan-tropical equations, showed that ecosystem-specific equations provided better estimators. The results highlight the importance of considering wood density in tree allometry for biomass as well as for tree height estimations. Although general allometric equations can be useful, this study recommends when they are available, the use of existing site-specific or ecosystem-specific allometric equations which provide better estimates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".