Spatial patterns of tree and shrub biomass in a deciduous forest using leaf-off and leaf-on lidar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding patterns of aboveground carbon storage across forest types is increasingly important as managers adapt to threats of global change. We combined field measures of aboveground biomass with lidar to model fine-scale biomass in deciduous forests located in two watersheds; one watershed was underlain by sandstone and the other by shale. We measured tree and shrub biomass across three topographic positions for both watersheds and analyzed biomass using mixed models. The watershed underlain by shale had 60% more aboveground biomass than the sandstone watershed. Although spatial patterns of biomass were different across watersheds, both had higher (between about 40% and 55%) biomass values at the toe-slope position than at the ridge-top position. To model fine-scale spatial patterns of biomass, we tested the effectiveness of leaf-on and leaf-off lidar combined with topographic metrics to develop a spatially explicit random forest model of tree and shrub biomass across both watersheds. Leaf-on variables were more important for modeling shrub biomass, while leaf-off variables were more effective at modeling tree biomass. Our model of tree and shrub biomass reflects the distribution of biomass across both watersheds at a fine scale and highlights the potential of abiotic factors such as topography and bedrock to affect carbon storage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".