ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluating tree biomass estimation in trans-Atlantic mangrove species: Comparing bole diameter measurements for improved accuracy.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.