Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40934186›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Evaluating tree biomass estimation in trans-Atlantic mangrove species: Comparing bole diameter measurements for improved accuracy.

Charles A Price, Todd A Schroeder, Benjamin Branoff, Humfredo Marcano-Vega, Nicole Pillot-Torres, Morgan Chaudry, Michael Ross, Monica Papeș, Skip Van Bloem

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Charles A PriceEcology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4737-9033
Todd A SchroederForest Inventory and Analysis, Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Benjamin BranoffForest Inventory and Analysis, Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Humfredo Marcano-VegaForest Inventory and Analysis, Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Nicole Pillot-TorresBoricorp, San Juan, Puerto Rico, United States of America.
Morgan ChaudryBaruch Institute of Coastal Ecology and Forest Science, Clemson University, Georgetown, South Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0009-0005-5629-1411
Michael RossInstitute of Environment, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, United States of America.
Monica PapeșEcology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.
Skip Van BloemBaruch Institute of Coastal Ecology and Forest Science, Clemson University, Georgetown, South Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Estimating the biomass of terrestrial forests generally, and mangrove forests in particular, is an area of considerable interest. Most approaches rely on empirically derived allometric models to predict tree biomass. The single parameter with the strongest predictive ability in most studies is diameter at breast height (DBH); however the use of DBH arose primarily out of convenience, not from an analysis of tree form. While DBH explains a lot of variability in other tree metrics such as height or above ground biomass, its utility in smaller species is uncertain. Here we used measurements from 302 destructively sampled mangrove trees of four species to test which of three bole diameter measurements, basal stem diameter (BSD), diameter at 30 cm (D30), and DBH, is the best predictor of aboveground biomass. D30 had the highest mean coefficient of determination (R2) and lowest mean root mean squared error (RMSE) across all site/species combinations. However, the improvement over DBH was modest, with a mean across all site/species combinations of 1.58 kg RMSE and R2 of 0.948 for D30, compared to 1.63 kg RMSE and R2 of 0.917 for DBH. Nevertheless, D30 may have utility in future studies as it allows for lower size thresholds and has better overall explanatory power than DBH.

Indexed as

BiomassRhizophoraceaeTreesWetlands

Identifiers

PMID40934186
PMCPMC12425185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.