MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417269226 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-6034

Quantifying the influence of wood carbon fractions on tree- and forest ecosystem-scale carbon estimation in a temperate forest

2025· article· W4417269226 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Adam R. Martin, Dilene Mugenzi, Sean C. Thomas, Audrey Barker Plotkin, Mahendra Doraisami, Mark Givelas, Adam Gorgolewski, Rachel. O. Mariani, David A. Orwig, Benton N. Taylor, Leeladarshini Sujeeun

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsHaliburton Forest & Wild Life ReserveThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHarvard Forest, Harvard University
KeywordsCarbon stockTemperate rainforestCarbon accountingBiomass (ecology)Forest ecologyTemperate forestTemperate climateClimate changeStock (firearms)Forest management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Accurate forest carbon (C) accounting is critical for understanding the role forests play in the global C cycle. Forest C accounting relies on wood carbon fractions (CF) in order to convert estimates of tree biomass into C stock estimates, which are then upscaled to estimate forest C stocks at larger spatial scales. Generic wood CFs are often used in C accounting frameworks, despite evidence suggesting this trait varies widely across species, and that this variability influences our understanding of C stocks in trees and forests. Here, we couple data from over 39,000 trees in a 13.5-ha forest dynamics plot in central Ontario, Canada, with open-access wood CF databases, to quantify how wood CFs influence C stock estimates at individual tree- through to 400 m2 and 1-ha forest ecosystem scales. In comparison to generalized wood CF assumptions (e.g., assuming a 50 % CF or using wood CFs from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), species-specific wood CFs significantly influence C estimates at multiple scales. In comparison to species-specific wood CF data, tree-level estimates derived from other wood CF assumptions were biased by 0.8–3.9 kg of C per tree on average, with differences ranging up to > 500 kg of C in large trees. While relatively small, these tree-level differences compound at larger spatial scales, with C stocks estimated using generalized wood CFs differing by 1.3–3.2 Mg of C ha−1 on average vs. those generated using species-specific wood CFs. These forest-scale discrepancies in C estimates increase in forest stands with high amounts of aboveground biomass in large trees and greater proportions of gymnosperms, in some instances exceeding 23.5 Mg of C ha−1 in especially biomass-dense gymnosperm-dominated forest stands. When extrapolated to the temperate forest biome, our results indicate that a 50 % wood CF assumption—historically and presently one of the most common methodological assumptions in forest C research—overestimates global C stocks by 2.2–2.5 Pg of C. Our study is among the first to examine how wood CF assumptions influence tree- and forest-scale C accounting. We specifically demonstrate that species-specific wood CF data—especially for species that comprise the largest trees—are critical to ensuring accurate C stock estimates derived from forest and tree inventory data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies→French-language works237,207→