Generalized additive models reveal among-stand variation in live tree biomass equations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate estimation of forest biomass is important for scientists and policymakers interested in carbon accounting, nutrient cycling, and forest resilience. Estimates often rely on the allometry of trees; however, limited datasets, uncertainty in model form, and unaccounted-for sources of variation warrant a reexamination of allometric relationships using modern statistical techniques. We asked the following questions: (i) Is there among-stand variation in allometric relationships? (ii) Is there nonlinearity in allometric relationships? (iii) Can among-stand variation or nonlinearities in allometric equations be attributed to differences in stand age? (iv) What are the implications for biomass estimation? To answer these questions, we synthesized a dataset of small trees from six different studies in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. We compared the performance of generalized additive models (GAMs) and linear models and found that GAMs consistently outperform linear models. The best-fitting model indicates that allometries vary among both stands and species and contain subtle nonlinearities that are themselves variable by species. Using a planned contrasts analysis, we were able to attribute some of the observed among-stand heterogeneity to differences in stand age. However, variability in these results points to additional sources of stand-level heterogeneity, which if identified could improve the accuracy of live tree biomass estimation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".