Construction of compatible and additive individual-tree biomass models for <i>Pinus</i> <i>tabulaeformis</i> in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current biomass models for Chinese pine (Pinus tabulaeformis Carr.) fail to accurately estimate biomass in large geographic regions because they were usually based on limited sample trees on local sites, incompatible with stem volume, and not additive among components and total biomass. This study was based on mensuration data of individual-tree biomass from large samples of Chinese pine. The purpose was to construct compatible and additive biomass models using the nonlinear error-in-variable simultaneous equations and dummy variable modeling approach. This approach could ensure compatibility of an aboveground biomass model with a biomass conversion factor (BCF) and a stem volume model and compatibility of a belowground biomass model with a root-to-shoot ratio (RSR) model. Also, stem, branch, and foliage biomass models were additive to the aboveground biomass model. Results showed that mean prediction errors (MPEs) of the developed one- and two-variable aboveground biomass models were less than 4% and MPEs of the three-component (stem, branch, and foliage) and belowground biomass models were less than 10%. Furthermore, the effects of main climate variables on above- and below-ground biomass were analyzed. Aboveground biomass was related to mean annual temperature (MAT), while belowground biomass had no significant relationship with either MAT or mean annual precipitation (MAP). The developed models provide a good basis for estimating biomass of Chinese pine forests.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".