Global patterns of tree wood density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wood density is a fundamental property related to tree biomechanics and hydraulic function while playing a crucial role in assessing vegetation carbon stocks by linking volumetric retrieval and a mass estimate. This study provides a high-resolution map of the global distribution of tree wood density at the 0.01° (~1 km) spatial resolution, derived from four decision trees machine learning models using a global database of 28,822 tree-level wood density measurements. An ensemble of four top-performing models combined with eight cross-validation strategies shows great consistency, providing wood density patterns with pronounced spatial heterogeneity. The global pattern shows lower wood density values in northern and northwestern Europe, Canadian forest regions and slightly higher values in Siberia forests, western United States, and southern China. In contrast, tropical regions, especially wet tropical areas, exhibit high wood density. Climatic predictors explain 49%-63% of spatial variations, followed by vegetation characteristics (25%-31%) and edaphic properties (11%-16%). Notably, leaf type (evergreen vs. deciduous) and leaf habit type (broadleaved vs. needleleaved) are the most dominant individual features among all selected predictive covariates. Wood density tends to be higher for angiosperm broadleaf trees compared to gymnosperm needleleaf trees, particularly for evergreen species. The distributions of wood density categorized by leaf types and leaf habit types have good agreement with the features observed in wood density measurements. This global map quantifying wood density distribution can help improve accurate predictions of forest carbon stocks, providing deeper insights into ecosystem functioning and carbon cycling such as forest vulnerability to hydraulic and thermal stresses in the context of future climate change.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".