Imputation of Individual Longleaf Pine (<i>Pinus palustris</i>Mill.) Tree Attributes from Field and LiDAR Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) has demonstrated potential for forest inventory at the individual-tree level. The aim in this study was to predict individual-tree height (Ht; m), basal area (BA; m2), and stem volume (V; m3) attributes, imputing Random Forest k-nearest neighbor (RF k-NN) and individual-tree-level-based metrics extracted from a LiDAR-derived canopy height model (CHM) in a longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) forest in southwestern Georgia, United States. We developed a new framework for modeling tree-level forest attributes that comprise 3 steps: (i) individual tree detection, crown delineation, and tree-level-based metrics computation from LiDAR-derived CHM; (ii) automatic matching of LiDAR-derived trees and field-based trees for a regression modeling step using a novel algorithm; and (iii) RF k-NN imputation modeling for estimating tree-level Ht, BA, and V and subsequent summarization of these metrics at the plot and stand levels. RMSDs for tree-level Ht, BA, and V were 2.96%, 58.62%, and 8.19%, respectively. Although BA estimation accuracy was poor because of the longleaf pine growth habitat, individual-tree locations, Ht, and V were estimated with high accuracy, especially in low-canopy-cover conditions. Future efforts based on the findings could help improve the estimation accuracy of individual-tree-level attributes such as BA.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".