Characterizing Forest Succession Stages for Wildlife Habitat Assessment Using Multispectral Airborne Imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we demonstrate the potential of using high spatial resolution airborne imagery to characterize the structural development stages of forest canopies. Four forest succession stages were adopted: stand initiation, young multistory, understory reinitiation, and old growth. Remote sensing metrics describing the spatial patterns of forest structures were derived and a Random Forest learning algorithm was used to classify forest succession stages. These metrics included texture variables from Gray Level Co-occurrence Measures (GLCM), range and sill from the semi-variogram, and the fraction of shadow and its spatial distribution. Among all the derived variables, shadow fractions and the GLCM variables of contrast, mean, and dissimilarity were the most important for characterizing the forest succession stages (classification accuracy of 89%). In addition, a LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) derived forest structural index (predicted Lorey’s height) was employed to validate the classification result. The classification using imagery spatial variables was shown to be consistent with the LiDAR derived variable (R2 = 0.68 and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) = 2.39). This study demonstrates that high spatial resolution imagery was able to characterize forest succession stages with promising accuracy and may be considered an alternative to LiDAR data for this kind of application. Also, the results of stand development stages build a framework for future wildlife habitat mapping.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".