↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating revised biomass equations: are some forest types more equivalent than others?

Overview of attention for article published in Carbon Balance and Management, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluating revised biomass equations: are some forest types more equivalent than others?
Published in
Carbon Balance and Management, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13021-015-0042-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Coeli M. Hoover, James E. Smith

Abstract

In 2014, Chojnacky et al. published a revised set of biomass equations for trees of temperate US forests, expanding on an existing equation set (published in 2003 by Jenkins et al.), both of which were developed from published equations using a meta-analytical approach. Given the similarities in the approach to developing the equations, an examination of similarities or differences in carbon stock estimates generated with both sets of equations benefits investigators using the Jenkins et al. (For Sci 49:12-34, 2003) equations or the software tools into which they are incorporated. We provide a roadmap for applying the newer set to the tree species of the US, present results of equivalence testing for carbon stock estimates, and provide some general guidance on circumstances when equation choice is likely to have an effect on the carbon stock estimate. Total carbon stocks in live trees, as predicted by the two sets, differed by less than one percent at a national level. Greater differences, sometimes exceeding 10-15 %, were found for individual regions or forest type groups. Differences varied in magnitude and direction; one equation set did not consistently produce a higher or lower estimate than the other. Biomass estimates for a few forest type groups are clearly not equivalent between the two equation sets-southern pines, northern spruce-fir, and lower productivity arid western forests-while estimates for the majority of forest type groups are generally equivalent at the scales presented. Overall, the possibility of very different results between the Chojnacky and Jenkins sets decreases with aggregate summaries of those 'equivalent' type groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 30%
Student > Master 6 18%
Researcher 5 15%
Professor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 11 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 18%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 12%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 February 2016.
All research outputs
#13,104,022
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Carbon Balance and Management
#140
of 236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,076
of 395,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Carbon Balance and Management
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,131 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.