Managing forest carbon and landscape capacities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Widespread impacts of a warming planet are fuelling climate change mitigation efforts world-wide. Decision makers are turning to forests, the largest terrestrial primary producer, as a nature-based contribution to mitigation efforts. Resource-based economies, however, have yet to include carbon (C) in their resource planning, slowing the implementation of these important measures for atmospheric greenhouse gas reduction. The realisation of forest mitigation potential depends greatly on our ability to integrate C-sequestration practices in our forest management applications. This requires robust C-estimates, an understanding of the natural potential for a specific landscape to sequester C, the current state of the landscape relative to this potential, and the evaluation of management practices as a tool to sequester forest C in the midst of all the other values forests offer humans. Discrepancies between models used in management decisions and C estimation are the first hurdle impeding the application of forest-based mitigation strategies. Here, we combine forest disturbance and management models with a well-established C model on an open-source simulation platform. We then use the modelling system to produce C estimates of the natural C-holding capacity (potential) and two management scenarios for a study area in BC, Canada. Our simulations provide an essential metric if forests are to be managed for C-sequestration: the natural landscape C-holding capacity. Our simulations also point to a decreasing trend in simulated C on the study area over time and to a bias of the current C-levels compared to the landscape C-holding capacity (477 vs 405.5 MtC). Our explanations for this bias may provide an avenue for improved current C-state estimates. We provide a framework and the information needed for the implementation of nature-based solutions using forests for climate change mitigation. This study is a step towards modelling systems that can unify scientifically based forest management and informed C-management.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".