Reconstruction and analysis of a deciduous sapling using digital photographs or terrestrial-LiDAR technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To meet the increasing need for rapid and non-destructive extraction of canopy traits, two methods were used and compared with regard to their accuracy in estimating 2-D and 3-D parameters of a hybrid poplar sapling. METHODS: The first method consisted of the analysis of high definition photographs in Tree Analyser (TA) software (PIAF-INRA/Kasetsart University). TA allowed the extraction of individual traits using a space carving approach. The second method utilized 3-D point clouds acquired from terrestrial light detection and ranging (T-LiDAR) scans. T-LiDAR scans were performed on trees without leaves to reconstruct the lignified structure of the sapling. From this skeleton, foliage was added using simple modelling rules extrapolated from field measurements. Validation of the estimated dimension and the accuracy of reconstruction was then achieved by comparison with an empirical data set. KEY RESULTS: TA was found to be slightly less precise than T-LiDAR for estimating tree height, canopy height and mean canopy diameter, but for 2-D traits both methods were, however, fully satisfactory. TA tended to over-estimate total leaf area (error up to 50 %), but better estimates were obtained by reducing the size of the voxels used for calculations. In contrast, T-LiDAR estimated total leaf area with an error of <6 %. Finally, both methods led to an over-estimation of canopy volume. With respect to this trait, T-LiDAR (14·5 % deviation) greatly surpassed the accuracy of TA (up to 50 % deviation), even if the voxels used were reduced in size. CONCLUSIONS: Taking into account their magnitude of data acquisition and analysis and their accuracy in trait estimations, both methods showed contrasting potential future uses. Specifically, T-LiDAR is a particularly promising tool for investigating the development of large perennial plants, by itself or in association with plant modelling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".