Rapid, nondestructive estimation of forest understory biomass using a handheld laser rangefinder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The forest understory is often associated with rapid rates of carbon and nutrient cycling, but cost-efficient quantification of its biomass remains challenging. We tested a new field technique for understory biomass assessment using an off-the-shelf handheld laser rangefinder. We conducted laser sampling in a pine forest with an understory dominated by invasive woody shrubs, especially Rhamnus frangula L. Laser sampling was conducted using a rangefinder, mounted on a monopod to provide a consistent reference height, and pointed vertically downward. Subsequently, the understory biomass was measured with destructive sampling. A series of metrics derived from the airborne LiDAR literature were evaluated alone and in combination for prediction of understory biomass using best-subsets regression. Resulting fits were good (r2 = 0.85 and 0.84 for the best single metric and best additive metric, respectively, and R2 = 0.93 for the best multivariate model). The results indicate that laser sampling could substantially reduce the need for costly destructive sampling within a double-sampling context.
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 | 0.000 | 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".