MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410928477 · doi:10.1007/s10457-025-01221-9

Empirical allometric models for estimating aboveground biomass of Bambusa teres and Bambusa tulda in non-forest areas of Nepal

2025· article· en· W4410928477 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAgroforestry Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Southern Queensland
KeywordsBambusaAllometryBiomass (ecology)Tree allometryBiologyBambooAgroforestryTropicsBotanyForestryGeographyAgronomyEcologyBiomass partitioning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The ability of bamboo to store carbon in its biomass varies depending on species, site conditions, and management practices. In Nepal, bamboo is widely distributed outside forest areas, often with little or no management, making it essential to develop biomass models to quantify its carbon stock potential in such settings. Therefore, this study aims to develop species-specific aboveground biomass models for Bambusa teres Buch.-Ham. ex Munro and Bambusa tulda Roxb. in non-forest areas of Nepal. A total of 104 culms (54 B. teres , 50 B. tulda ) were sampled; diameter at breast height (DBH) and height ranged 4.0–9.4 cm and 8.3–22.4 cm in B. teres , 4.3–10.5 cm and 7.0–20.7 cm in B. tulda . Various regression models (linear, power, and exponential) were tested using DBH and height as independent variables and biomass components (foliage, branch, culm, and total aboveground biomass) as dependent variables. Due to the small sample size, the leave-one-out cross-validation method was used for model validation. Our findings indicate that B. tulda had significantly higher mean DBH, foliage, and branch biomass than B. teres . The power model incorporating both DBH and height (M9) performed best (adj. R 2 > 0.80) for predicting culm biomass and total aboveground biomass in both species. However, none of the models accurately predicted foliage biomass and branch biomass (adj. R 2 < 0.55), suggesting that allometric models may not be suitable for these components. This study aids in quantifying bamboo carbon and establishing a database for studied species, facilitating Nepal’s entry into the carbon credit market. We recommend development of species- and age-specific allometric models for other bamboo species along with belowground biomass models to enhance bamboo carbon quantification in non-forest settings in Nepal.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it