Forecasting Forest Inventory Using Imputed Tree Lists for LiDAR Grid Cells and a Tree-List Growth Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method to forecast forest inventory variables derived from light detection and ranging (LiDAR) would increase the usefulness of such data in future forest management. We evaluated the accuracy of forecasted inventory from imputed tree lists for LiDAR grid cells (20 × 20 m) in spruce (Picea sp.) plantations and tree growth predicted using a locally calibrated tree-list growth model. Tree lists were imputed by matching measurements from a library of sample plots with grid cells based on planted species and the smallest sum of squared difference between six inventory variables. Total and merchantable basal area, total and merchantable volume, Lorey’s height, and quadratic mean diameter increments predicted using imputed tree lists were highly correlated (0.75–0.86) with those from measured tree lists in 98 validation plots. Percent root mean squared error ranged from 12.8–49.0% but was much lower (4.9–13.5%) for plots with ≤10% LiDAR-derived error for all plot-matched variables. When compared with volumes from 15 blocks harvested 3–5 years after LiDAR acquisition, average forecasted volume differed by only 1.5%. To demonstrate the novel application of this method for operational management decisions, annual commercial thinning was planned at grid-cell resolution from 2018–2020 using forecasted inventory variables and commercial thinning eligibility rules.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".