Generalized additive models vs. traditional models for teak biomass estimation in Northern Thailand
Article Sidebar
Abstract Views: 228
File Views: 161
Main Article Content
Abstract
Abstract. Meunpong P, Takuathung CN, Rianthakool L, Yingdee J, Kaewgrajang T, Sriarkarin S, Jumwong N, Sangvisitpirom P, Chonlapap N, Chumsangsri T. 2026. Generalized additive models vs. traditional models for teak biomass estimation in Northern Thailand. Biodiversitas 27 (1): d270119. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d270119. Accurate estimation of aboveground biomass is essential for carbon accounting and sustainable management of teak (Tectona grandis) plantations, yet traditional allometric equations may not capture nonlinear variation in stem form and crown biomass allocation. We developed and evaluated generalized additive models (GAMs) incorporating internal stem geometry (mid-height and mid-diameter) using destructive sampling of 30 trees (n = 30) from managed teak plantations in northern Thailand. Model performance was assessed using leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) and compared with a conventional log-linear DBH-only allometric model. The GAM substantially outperformed the traditional allometric model, reducing prediction error by approximately 44% (RMSE = 28.47 kg vs. 51.28 kg) and increasing predictive accuracy (R² = 0.975 vs. 0.918). GAM smoothers revealed interpretable nonlinear effects for DBH and mid-height, while mid-diameter was penalized toward linearity. Residual diagnostics indicated adequate model fit, and sensitivity analysis showed that GAM performance was robust to changes in smoother complexity. Branch biomass exhibited lower deviance explained but moderate LOOCV accuracy. Leaf biomass showed low predictability due to inherently high biological variability. Monte Carlo simulations propagated tree-level uncertainty to plot-level biomass. The GAM produced substantially narrower 95% confidence intervals (0.91-1.85 t ha-¹) than the allometric model (1.76-4.14 t ha-¹), indicating improved stability for operational carbon assessments. These results demonstrate that flexible modeling approaches incorporating internal stem geometry can significantly enhance both accuracy and precision of teak biomass estimation. Generalized additive models provide a robust alternative to traditional allometries, particularly where nonlinear stem structure influences biomass allocation, and offer clear advantages for plantation-scale carbon accounting and sustainable forest management.
Article Details
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Aguilar FJ, Nemmaoui A, Peñalver A, Rivas JR, Aguilar MA. 2019. Developing allometric equations for teak plantations located in the coastal region of Ecuador from terrestrial laser scanning data. Forests 10 (12): 1050. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10121050.
Buvaneswaran C, George M, Pérez D, Markku K. 2006. Biomass of teak plantations in Tamil Nadu, India, and Costa Rica compared. J Trop For Sci 18 (3): 195-197.
Chave J, Réjou-Méchain M, Búrquez A, Chidumayo E, Colgan MS, Delitti WB, Duque A, Eid T, Fearnside PM, Goodman RC, et al. 2014. Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees. Glob Chang Biol 20 (10): 3177-3190. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12629.
Choochuen T, Suksavate W, Meunpong P. 2021. Development of a taper equation for teak (Tectona grandis L.f.) growing in eastern Thailand. Environ Nat Resour J 19 (3): 176-185. https://doi.org/10.32526/ennrj/19/2020183.
Cordero LP, Kanninen M. 2003. Aboveground biomass of Tectona grandis plantations in Costa Rica. J Trop For Sci 15 (1): 199-213.
Breiman L. 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45 (1): 5-32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324.
Dassot M, Constant T, Fournier M. 2011. The use of terrestrial LiDAR technology in forest science: Application fields, benefits, and challenges. Ann For Sci 68: 959-974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-011-0102-2.
Duan N. 1983. Smearing estimate: A nonparametric retransformation method. Am Stat Assoc 78: 383. 605-610. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1983.10478017.
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand. 2024. Mae Moh Weather Information. www.watertele.egat.co.th/maemoh.
Fuseini A, Addaney M, Akudugu JA, Nyarko BJ, Kang-Milung S. 2025. Understanding the teak timber value chain in the Bono Region of Ghana: Analysis and policy implications. For Econ Rev 7 (2): 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1108/FER-08-2023-0008.
Gelman A, Hill J. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790942.
Goodman RC, Phillips OL, Baker TR. 2014. The importance of crown dimensions to improve tropical tree biomass estimates. Ecol Appl 24 (4): 680-698. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0070.1.
Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. 2009. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. 2nd ed. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7.
Harikrishnan S, Vasudevan K, Udhayan A, Mathur PK. 2012. Biodiversity values of abandoned teak, Tectona grandis, plantations in the Southern Western Ghats: Is there a need for management intervention?. Basic Appl Ecol 13 (2): 139-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2012.01.001.
Henry M, Picard N, Trotta C, Manlay R, Valentini R, Bernoux M, Saint André L. 2011. Estimating tree biomass of sub-Saharan African forests: A review of available allometric equations. Silva Fenn 45 (3B): 38. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.38.
IPCC. 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Vol 4 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Institute for global environmental strategies, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Kenzo T, Himmapan W, Yoneda R, Tedsorn N, Vacharangkura T, Hitsuma G, Noda I. 2020. General estimation models for above- and belowground biomass of teak (Tectona grandis) plantations in Thailand. For Ecol Manag 457: 117701. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117701.
Kollert W, Sandeep S, Sreelakshmy MP. 2024. Global Teak Resources and Market Assessment 2022. International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO), Vienna.
Ledo A, Cornulier T, Illian JB, Iida Y, Kassim AR, Burslem DFRP. 2016. Re-evaluation of individual diameter: Height allometric models to improve biomass estimation of tropical trees. Ecol Appl 26 (8): 2376-2382. DOI: 10.1002/eap.1450.
Marra G, Wood SN. 2011. Practical variable selection for generalized additive models. Comput Stat Data Anal 55 (7): 2372-2387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2011.02.004.
Mauro F, Hudak AT, Fekety PA, Frank B, Temesgen H, Bell DM, Gregory MJ, McCarley TR. 2020. Regional modeling of forest fuels and structural attributes using airborne laser scanning data in Oregon. Remote Sens 13 (2): 261. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13020261.
Ounban W, Puangchit L, Diloksumpun S. 2015. Development of general biomass allometric equations for Tectona grandis Linn.F. and Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh. plantations in Thailand. Agric Nat Resour 50 (1): 48-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anres.2015.08.001.
Picard N, Rutishauser E, Ploton P, Ngomanda A, Henry M. 2015. Should tree biomass allometry be restricted to power models? For Ecol Manag 353: 156-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.05.035.
Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. 2000. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0318-1.
Pokhrel NR, Subedi MR, Malego B. 2024. Fitting and evaluating taper functions to predict upper stem diameter of planted teak (Tectona grandis L.F.) in eastern and central regions of Nepal. Forests 16 (1): 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16010077.
Ruiz-Blandon BA, Hernández-Alvarez E, Martínez-Trinidad T, Amaringo-Cordova LP, Ucañay-Ayllon TM, Bernaola-Paucar RM, Hernández-Plascencia G, Orellana-Mendoza E. 2025. Growth, productivity, and biomass-carbon allometry in teak (Tectona grandis) plantations of western Mexico. Forests 16 (10): 1521. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16101521.
Salekin S, Catalán CH, Boczniewicz D, Phiri D, Morgenroth J, Meason DF, Mason EG. 2021. Global tree taper modelling: A review of applications, methods, functions, and their parameters. Forests 12 (7): 913. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12070913.
Soraya E, Umarhadi DA, Wardhana W, Senawi S, Ardiansyah F. 2025. Aerial imagery and UAV-LiDAR data fusion for quantifying aboveground carbon stock of teak plantation. Ecol Eng Environ Technol 26 (2): 178-192. ttps://doi.org/10.12912/27197050/197151.
Stewart HTL, Race DH, Rohadi D, Schmidt DM. 2021. Growth and profitability of smallholder sengon and teak plantations in the Pati district, Indonesia. For Policy Econ 130: 102539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102539.
Vorster AG, Evangelista PH, Stovall AEL, Ex S. 2020. Variability and uncertainty in forest biomass estimates from the tree to landscape scale: The role of allometric equations. Carbon Balance Manag 15 (1): 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-020-00143-6.
Wood SN. 2017. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. Chapman and Hall. New York. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315370279.
Woods CL, Nevins LM, Didier EJ. 2019. Structural heterogeneity of trees influences epiphyte distributions in a northern temperate rainforest. J Veg Sci 30 (6): 1134-1142. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12797.
Zianis D, Muukkonen P, Mäkipää R, Mencuccini M. 2005. Biomass and Stem Volume Equations for Tree Species in Europe. Silva Fennica Monographs. http://www.metla.fi/silvafennica/full/smf/smf004.pdf