Comparing 30 Tree Biomass Models to Estimate Forest Biomass in the Amazon

This study tests the performance of 30 tree-level models of literature to predict the aboveground biomass (AGB) of trees in 200 1 ha simulated plots representing the following two successional stages of Amazonian forests: Advanced Secondary Forest (ASF) and Mature Forest (MF). This matters because reliable biomass estimates are fundamental to carbon quantification and climate policy. Ensuring consistency between tree-level and plot-level accuracy strengthens transparency and credibility in global reporting. The aim was twofold: (i) to recommend accurate models to predict biomass in the Amazon and (ii) to detect what characteristics of the model calibration dataset can affect the accuracy of the AGB predicted at the plot level. We considered the characteristics of datasets, sample size, minimum, maximum, and range of tree diameters, as well as the coefficient of determination, root mean square error (RMSE), and number of predictors of the 30 models consulted in the literature. These characteristics were correlated with the biomass error per unit area. We listed 11 models based on their acceptable (overall ± 10%) accuracy, whereas four models overestimated and 15 models underestimated the biomass per unit area beyond the acceptable limit. Our analysis pointed out that the strongest (but moderate) correlation (r) was observed for the RMSE of the models, i.e., precision of model predictions. These correlations were r = 0.60 (p = 0.40) for ASF (kg) and r = 0.40 (p = 0.60) for MF (kg) and r = 0.57 (p = 0.18) for ASF (log) and r = 0.21 (p = 0.64) for MF (log), which means that models with greater uncertainty (higher RMSE) tend to produce larger errors in AGB estimation. As a main conclusion, this study cautions that selecting one model among several based on the lowest RMSE is a misleading practice because the precision of predictions at the tree level is not in agreement with the precision at the plot level.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Forests
Published
2026-02-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/f17020213
Primary Topic
Forest ecology and management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparing 30 Tree Biomass Models to Estimate Forest Biomass in the Amazon

R. Álvarez García, Hassan Camil David, Fabiano Rodrigues Pereira, Rorai Pereira Martins-Neto et al.
Forests
Forest ecology and management
article

Comparing 30 Tree Biomass Models to Estimate Forest Biomass in the Amazon

R. Álvarez García, Hassan Camil David, Fabiano Rodrigues Pereira, Rorai Pereira Martins-Neto, Thaís C. Almeida, Lina M. R. Galvão, Xavier S. Chivale, Carlos R. Sanquetta
article en

Abstract

This study tests the performance of 30 tree-level models of literature to predict the aboveground biomass (AGB) of trees in 200 1 ha simulated plots representing the following two successional stages of Amazonian forests: Advanced Secondary Forest (ASF) and Mature Forest (MF). This matters because reliable biomass estimates are fundamental to carbon quantification and climate policy. Ensuring consistency between tree-level and plot-level accuracy strengthens transparency and credibility in global reporting. The aim was twofold: (i) to recommend accurate models to predict biomass in the Amazon and (ii) to detect what characteristics of the model calibration dataset can affect the accuracy of the AGB predicted at the plot level. We considered the characteristics of datasets, sample size, minimum, maximum, and range of tree diameters, as well as the coefficient of determination, root mean square error (RMSE), and number of predictors of the 30 models consulted in the literature. These characteristics were correlated with the biomass error per unit area. We listed 11 models based on their acceptable (overall ± 10%) accuracy, whereas four models overestimated and 15 models underestimated the biomass per unit area beyond the acceptable limit. Our analysis pointed out that the strongest (but moderate) correlation (r) was observed for the RMSE of the models, i.e., precision of model predictions. These correlations were r = 0.60 (p = 0.40) for ASF (kg) and r = 0.40 (p = 0.60) for MF (kg) and r = 0.57 (p = 0.18) for ASF (log) and r = 0.21 (p = 0.64) for MF (log), which means that models with greater uncertainty (higher RMSE) tend to produce larger errors in AGB estimation. As a main conclusion, this study cautions that selecting one model among several based on the lowest RMSE is a misleading practice because the precision of predictions at the tree level is not in agreement with the precision at the plot level.

ForestsVol. 17(2)
Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (CZ), Universidade Federal do Paraná (BR)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Forest ecology and management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.