Improving a Process-Based Model to Simulate Forest Carbon Allocation under Varied Stand Density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon allocation is an important mechanism through which plants respond to environmental changes. To enhance our understanding of maximizing carbon uptake by controlling planting densities, the carbon allocation module of a process-based model, TRIPLEX-Management, was modified and improved by introducing light, soil water, and soil nitrogen availability factors to quantify the allocation coefficients for different plant organs. The modified TRIPLEX-Management model simulation results were verified against observations from northern Jiangsu Province, China, and then the model was used to simulate dynamic changes in forest carbon under six density scenarios (200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, and 1200 stems ha−1). The mean absolute errors between the predicted and observed variables of the mean diameter at breast height, mean height, and estimated aboveground biomass ranged from 15.0% to 26.6%, and were lower compared with the original model simulated results, which ranged from 24.4% to 60.5%. The normalized root mean square errors ranged from 0.2 to 0.3, and were lower compared with the original model simulated results, which ranged from 0.3 to 0.6. The Willmott index between the predicted and observed variables also varied from 0.5 to 0.8, indicating that the modified TRIPLEX-Management model could accurately simulate the dynamic changes in poplar (Populus spp.) plantations with different densities in northern Jiangsu Province. The density scenario results showed that the leaf and fine root allocation coefficients decreased with the increase in stand density, while the stem allocation increased. Overall, our study showed that the optimum stand density (approximately 400 stems ha−1) could reach the highest aboveground biomass for poplar stands and soil organic carbon storage, leading to higher ecological functions related to carbon sequestration without sacrificing wood production in an economical way in northern Jiangsu Province. Therefore, reasonable density control with different soil and climate conditions should be recommended to maximize carbon sequestration.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".