MAPPING THE RISK OF FOREST WIND DAMAGE USING AIRBORNE SCANNING LiDAR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Wind damage is known for causing threats to sustainable forest management and yield value in boreal forests. Information about wind damage risk can aid forest managers in understanding and possibly mitigating damage impacts. The objective of this research was to better understand and quantify drivers of wind damage, and to map the probability of wind damage. To accomplish this, we used open-access airborne scanning light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data. The probability of wind-induced forest damage (PDAM) in southern Finland (61°N, 23°E) was modelled for a 173 km2 study area of mainly managed boreal forests (dominated by Norway spruce and Scots pine) and agricultural fields. Wind damage occurred in the study area in December 2011. LiDAR data were acquired prior to the damage in 2008. High spatial resolution aerial imagery, acquired after the damage event (January, 2012) provided a source of model calibration via expert interpretation. A systematic grid (16 m x 16 m) was established and 430 sample grid cells were identified systematically and classified as damaged or undamaged based on visual interpretation using the aerial images. Potential drivers associated with PDAM were examined using a multivariate logistic regression model. Risk model predictors were extracted from the LiDAR-derived surface models. Geographic information systems (GIS) supported spatial mapping and identification of areas of high PDAM across the study area. The risk model based on LiDAR data provided good agreement with detected risk areas (73 % with kappa-value 0,47). The strongest predictors in the risk model were mean canopy height and mean elevation. Our results indicate that open-access LiDAR data sets can be used to map the probability of wind damage risk without field data, providing valuable information for forest management planning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".