{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0405780989438577, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0216787103946637, 'mean_word_length': 5.081081081081081, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 4, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Analysis of carbon concentration and allometric growth model of carbon content for Larix olgensis].

Forest carbon storage accounts for about 45% of terrestrial carbon storage. Accurate assessment of forest carbon storage is of great significance to the scientific management and planning of forests. Based on the data of 77 sampling Larix olgensis trees from Mengjiagang, Shangzhi Maoershan, Xiaojiu Forest Farm and Dongjing, Lin-kou Forestry Bureaus of Jiamusi, Heilongjiang Province from 2015 to 2018, we analyzed the partition of carbon content and variation of carbon concentration for five tree components (i.e., wood, bark, branch, leaf, and root). The mono-element and dual-element additive models of carbon content for each component of L. olgensis were deve-loped. The nonlinear seemly unrelated regression was used to estimate the parameters in the additive models, while the jackknife resampling technique was used to verify and evaluate the developed models. The results showed that the weighted mean carbon concentration of each component differed significantly, branches (49.3%) > bark (48.7%) > foliage (48.5%) > wood (48.2%) > root (47.1%). The aboveground and belowground carbon content accounted for about 80% and 20% of the total carbon content, respectively. The adjusted coefficient of determination (Ra2) of additive models of carbon content was greater than 0.89, the mean absolute error was less than 4.1 kg, and the mean absolute error percentage for most models was less than 30%. Adding tree height in the additive models of carbon content could significantly improve model fitting performance and predicting precision. The additive models of carbon content of total, aboveground, wood and bark were better than that of carbon content of branch, foliage, root and crown.