Data from: Carbon content of tree tissues: a synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing the potential for forest carbon (C) capture and storage requires accurate assessments of C in live tree tissues. In the vast majority of local, regional, and global assessments, C content has been assumed to be 50% of tree biomass; however, recent studies indicate that this assumption is not accurate, with substantial variation in C content among tree species as well as among tissue types. Here we conduct a comprehensive literature review to present a global synthesis of C content in tissues of live trees. We found a total of 253 species-specific stem wood C content records owing to 31 studies, and an additional 34 records of species with C content values of other tissues in addition to stem wood. Stem wood C content varied significantly as a function of biome (tropical, subtropical/ Mediterranean, temperate/ boreal) and species type (conifer, angiosperm). Conifer species exhibited greater wood C content than angiosperm species (50.8 ± 0.7% (95% C.I.) vs. 47.7 ± 0.3%, respectively), a trend that was consistent among all biomes. Although studies have documented differences in C content among plant tissues, interspecific differences in stem wood appear to be of greater importance overall: among species, stem wood C content explained 37, 76, 48, 81, and 63% respectively of the variation in bark, branch, twig, coarse root, and fine root C content values, respectively. In each case, these intraspecific patterns approximated 1:1 linear relationships. Most published stem wood C content values (and all values for other tree tissues) are based on dried wood samples, and so neglect volatile C constituents that constitute on average 1.3 – 2.5% of total C in live wood. Capturing this volatile C fraction is an important methodological consideration for future studies. Our review, and associated data compilation, provides empirically supported wood C fractions that can be easily incorporated into forest C accounting, and may correct systematic errors of ~1.6 – 5.8% in forest C assessments.
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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.013 |
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".