The influence of conifer forest canopy cover on the accuracy of two individual tree measurement algorithms using lidar data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual tree detection algorithms can provide accurate measurements of individual tree locations, crown diameters (from aerial photography and light detection and ranging (lidar) data), and tree heights (from lidar data). However, to be useful for forest management goals relating to timber harvest, carbon accounting, and ecological processes, there is a need to assess the performance of these image-based tree detection algorithms across a full range of canopy structure conditions. We evaluated the performance of two fundamentally different automated tree detection and measurement algorithms (spatial wavelet analysis (SWA) and variable window filters (VWF)) across a full range of canopy conditions in a mixed-species, structurally diverse conifer forest in northern Idaho, USA. Each algorithm performed well in low canopy cover conditions (<50% canopy cover), detecting over 80% of all trees with measurements, and producing tree height and crown diameter estimates that are well correlated with field measurements. However, increasing tree canopy cover significantly decreased the accuracy of both SWA and VWF tree measurements. Neither SWA or VWF produced tree measurements within 25% of field-based measurements in high canopy cover (i.e., canopy cover >50%) conditions. The results presented herein suggest that future algorithm development is required to improve individual tree detection in structurally complex forests. Furthermore, tree detection algorithms such as SWA and VWF may produce more accurate results when used in conjunction with higher density lidar data.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".