Measuring Vegetation Height in Linear Disturbances in the Boreal Forest with UAV Photogrammetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring vegetation recovery typically requires ground measurements of vegetation height, which is labor-intensive and time-consuming. Recently, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have shown great promise for characterizing vegetation in a cost-efficient way, but the literature on specific methods and cost savings is scant. In this study, we surveyed vegetation height on seismic lines in Alberta’s Boreal Forest using a point-intercept sampling strategy, and compared them to height estimates derived from UAV-based photogrammetric point clouds. In order to derive UAV-based vegetation height, we tested three different approaches to estimate terrain elevation: (1) UAV_RTK, where photogrammetric point clouds were normalized using terrain measurements obtained from a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) surveys; (2) UAV_LiDAR, where photogrammetric data were normalized using pre-existing LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data; and (3) UAV_UAV, where UAV photogrammetry data were used alone. Comparisons were done at two scales: point level (n = 1743) and site level (n = 30). The point-level root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) of UAV_RTK, UAV_LiDAR, and UAV_UAV were 28 cm, 31 cm, and 30 cm, respectively. The site-level RMSEs were 11 cm, 15 cm, and 8 cm, respectively. At the aggregated site level, we found that UAV photogrammetry could replace traditional field-based vegetation surveys of mean vegetation height across the range of conditions assessed in this study, with an RMSE less than 10 cm. Cost analysis indicates that using UAV-based point clouds is more cost-effective than traditional field vegetation surveys.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".