A national assessment of urban forest carbon storage and sequestration in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During a time of rapid urban growth and development, it is becoming ever more important to monitor the carbon fluxes of our cities. Unlike Canada’s commercially managed forests that have a long history of inventory and modelling tools, there is both a lack of coordinated data and considerable uncertainty on assessment procedures for urban forest carbon. Nonetheless, independent studies have been carried out across Canada. To improve upon Canada’s federal government reporting on carbon storage and sequestration by urban forests, this study builds on existing data to develop an updated assessment of carbon storage and sequestration for Canada’s urban forests. Using canopy cover estimates derived from ortho-imagery and satellite imagery ranging from 2008 to 2012 and field-based urban forest inventory and assessment data from 16 Canadian cities and one US city, this study found that Canadian urban forests store approximately 27,297.8 kt C (− 37%, + 45%) in above and belowground biomass and sequester approximately 1497.7 kt C year −1 (− 26%, + 28%). In comparison with the previous national assessment of urban forest carbon, this study suggested that in urban areas carbon storage has been overestimated and carbon sequestration has been underestimated. Maximizing urban forest carbon sinks will contribute to Canada’s mitigation efforts and, while being a smaller carbon sink compared to commercial forests, will also provide important ecosystem services and co-benefits to approximately 83% of Canadian people.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".