Estimating individual-tree aboveground biomass of tree species in the western U.S.A.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a large dataset compiled from studies over the years covering 23 tree species, we developed methods to estimate total and components (stem, bark, branch, and foliage) of aboveground live tree biomass. Missing components in the dataset were imputed using species-specific or generalized (species combined into softwood and hardwood groups) Dirichlet imputation. Geometric means of the imputed stem wood proportions were 8% and 9% higher than the observed geometric mean of stem wood proportions in softwood and hardwood species, respectively. For other components, the differences were within 1%. On average, the component ratio method (CRM), used for the official United States forest carbon inventories, underestimated the aboveground biomass (AGB, kg) predictions by 3.7% with a very wide range (–70.3% to 31.6%). Compared with the CRM approach, equations developed in this study reduced RMSE of AGB by as much as 145.0%. On average, new equations reduced RMSE in predicting individual-tree AGB by 15.5% compared with the CRM approach and by 3.9% compared with a calibration of CRM AGB. Predicting AGB as a function of stem volume was not as accurate as using direct AGB equations. Generalized component ratio equations may be suitable for the stem wood component but were highly biased for other components.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".