The Variation Driven by Differences between Species and between Sites in Allometric Biomass Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: It is commonly assumed that allometric biomass models are species-specific and site-specific. However, the magnitude of species and site dependency in these models is not well-known. This study aims to investigate the variation in allometric models (i.e., aboveground biomass predicted by diameter at breast height and tree height) that has originated from the differences between tree species and between sites, thereby contributing to a better understanding of species and site-specificity issue in these models. Materials and Methods: The study is based on two large biomass datasets of 4921 and 5199 trees, from Eurasia and Canada. Using a nested ANOVA model on relative aboveground biomass residuals (with species and site as random effects), the proportion of variance explained by species or site was assessed by means of Variance Partition Coefficient (VPC). Results: The proportion of variance explained by species (VPCspecies = 42.56%, SE = 6.10% for Dataset 1 and VPCspecies = 47.54%, SE = 6.07% for Dataset 2) was larger than that explained by site (VPCsite = 20.08%, SE = 3.35% for Dataset 1 and VPCsite = 8.27%, SE = 1.38% for Dataset 2). The proportion of variance explained by site decreased by 24%–44% and the proportion of variance explained by species changed only slightly, when height is included in the allometric biomass models (i.e., models based on diameter at breast height alone, compared to models based on diameter at breast height and tree height). Conclusions: Allometric biomass models were more species-specific than they were site-specific. Therefore, the species (i.e., differences between species) seems to be a more important driver of variability in allometric models compared to site (i.e., differences between sites). Including height in allometric biomass models helped reduce the dependency of these models, on sites only.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".