MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119759142 · doi:10.1080/07038992.2015.1068686

Estimating Forest Site Productivity Using Airborne Laser Scanning Data and Landsat Time Series

2015· article· en· W2119759142 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Piotr Tompalski, Nicholas C. Coops, Joanne C. White, Michael A. Wulder, Paul D. Pickell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniwersytet Rolniczy im. Hugona Kołłątaja w KrakowieNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsProductivityForest inventoryForestryGeographySite indexProxy (statistics)Environmental scienceBiomass (ecology)Physical geographyMathematicsStatisticsForest managementEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

. Site productivity, an important measure of the capacity of land to produce wood biomass, is traditionally estimated by applying species-specific, locally designed models that describe the relation between stand age and dominant height. In this article, we present an approach to derive chronosequences of stand age and height estimates from remotely sensed data to develop site productivity estimates. We first utilized an annual Landsat time series to identify areas of stand replacing disturbances and to estimate the time-since-disturbance, a proxy for stand age. Airborne laser scanning data were used to provide estimates of dominant height for these stands. Nonlinear regression was used to fit a site productivity guide curve for stands aged 7 to 32 years. Existing and developed productivity models, together with remote sensing and inventory data as inputs, were used to validate the site productivity model in three different comparisons. Site productivity was overestimated by 0.70 m (RMSE = 5.55 m) relative to existing forest inventory estimates; further, 89% of remote sensing estimates were within ±1 derived site class of the forest inventory estimates. We conclude that the presented approach is suitable for estimating site productivity for young stands in areas that lack wall-to-wall forest inventory data.Résumé. Le potentiel du site, une mesure importante de la capacité des terres à produire de la biomasse de bois, est traditionnellement estimé en appliquant des modèles spécifiques d’espèces, conçus localement, qui décrivent la relation entre l’âge du peuplement et la hauteur dominante. Dans cet article, nous présentons une approche pour dériver des séquences chronologiques d’estimations de l’âge du peuplement et de la hauteur à partir de données de télédétection pour établir des estimations du potentiel du site. Nous avons d’abord utilisé une série temporelle annuelle Landsat pour identifier les zones de perturbations menant au remplacement des peuplements et pour estimer le temps écoulé depuis la perturbation, un estimateur pour l’âge du peuplement. Des données laser aéroportées ont été utilisées pour fournir des estimations de la hauteur dominante de ces peuplements. Une régression non linéaire a été utilisée pour obtenir une courbe de potentiel du site pour les peuplements âgés de 7 à 32 ans. Les modèles de productivité existants ainsi que des données de télédétection et d’inventaire ont été utilisés comme entrées pour valider le modèle du potentiel du site à partir de trois comparaisons différentes. Le potentiel du site a été surestimé de 0,70 m (RMSE = 5,55 m) par rapport aux estimations existantes d’inventaires forestiers. De plus, 89% des estimations de télédétection étaient à ±1 classe dérivée du site des estimations de l’inventaire forestier. Nous concluons que l’approche présentée est appropriée pour estimer le potentiel du site pour les jeunes peuplements dans les zones avec des données incomplètes d’inventaire forestier.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207