Variation in wood density across South American tropical forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wood density is a critical control on tree biomass, so poor understanding of its spatial variation can lead to large and systematic errors in forest biomass estimates and carbon maps. The need to understand how and why wood density varies is especially critical in tropical America where forests have exceptional species diversity and spatial turnover in composition. As tree identity and forest composition are challenging to estimate remotely, ground surveys are essential to know the wood density of trees, whether measured directly or inferred from their identity. Here, we assemble an extensive dataset of variation in wood density across the most forested and tree-diverse continent, examine how it relates to spatial and environmental variables, and use these relationships to predict spatial variation in wood density over tropical and sub-tropical South America. Our analysis refines previously identified east-west Amazon gradients in wood density, improves them by revealing fine-scale variation, and extends predictions into Andean, dry, and Atlantic forests. The results halve biomass prediction errors compared to a naïve scenario with no knowledge of spatial variation in wood density. Our findings will help improve remote sensing-based estimates of aboveground biomass carbon stocks across tropical South America.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".