ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2026
Improving carbon modeling in aspen-dominated forests: Lessons from CBM-CFS3 evaluation against long-term field data.
Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Improving carbon modeling in aspen-dominated forests: Lessons from CBM-CFS3 evaluation against long-term field data.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Boreal forests cover a substantial portion of Canada's land base and play a central role in the national carbon budget through carbon storage and fluxes across multiple above- and belowground pools. The Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS3) simulates and projects forest carbon dynamics under varying conditions and management scenarios, and ongoing model evaluation and calibration are essential to maintain accuracy in carbon monitoring, accounting, and reporting. This study assesses CBM-CFS3 performance using independent ground plot data from 64 aspen-dominated stands that have been monitored since 2000 as part of the Climate Impacts on the Productivity and Health of Aspen (CIPHA) project. We compared modeled and observed C stocks in aboveground biomass, snags, forest floor, and mineral soil pools, and examined the influence of stand characteristics, climate variables, and soil chemical properties on model residuals. Model performance varied across carbon pools: CBM-CFS3 most accurately simulated aboveground biomass C stocks, performed moderately well for snags, but failed to capture spatial variability in forest floor and mineral soil C stocks. Our findings suggest that incorporating stand density into the yield curve model and stand age into volume-to-biomass conversion equations would enhance the accuracy of aboveground biomass C stock estimates in aspen-dominated stands. Representation of snag carbon dynamics could be improved by accounting for lagged mortality following drought events and by increasing snag fall rates. Further refinement of forest floor carbon dynamics will require integrating the influence of moisture on organic matter decomposition, while improving mineral soil carbon dynamics will require incorporating the effect of clay content on decomposition and reducing the temperature sensitivity of decay. Because these pools are interdependent, refinements in one pool will have cascading effects on downstream pools and overall carbon dynamics. The CBM-CFS3 remains a key tool for national carbon estimation, and the availability of high spatial and temporal resolution data, such as CIPHA, for model evaluation will further strengthen the model's predictive capability.
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.