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.
García et al. (Wed,) studied this question.