Aboveground forest biomass derived using multiple dates of WorldView-2 stereo-imagery: quantifying the improvement in estimation accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the capabilities of two date satellite-derived image-based point clouds (IPCs) to estimate forest aboveground biomass (AGB). The data sets used include panchromatic WorldView-2 stereo-imagery with 0.46 m spatial resolution representing 2014 and 2016 and a detailed digital elevation model derived from airborne laser scanning data. Altogether, 332 field sample plots with an area of 256 m2 were used for model development and validation. Predictors describing forest height, density, and variation in height were extracted from the IPC 2014 and 2016 and used in k-nearest neighbour imputation models developed with sample plot data for predicting AGB. AGB predictions for 2014 (AGB2014) were projected to 2016 using growth models (AGBProjected_2016) and combined with the AGB estimates derived from the 2016 data (AGB2016). AGB prediction model developed with 2014 data was also applied to 2016 data (AGB2016_pred2014). Based on our results, the change in the 90th percentile of height derived from the WorldView-2 IPC was able to characterize forest height growth between 2014 and 2016 with an average growth of 0.9 m. Features describing canopy cover and variation in height derived from the IPC were not as consistent. The AGB2016 had a bias of −7.5% (−10.6 Mg ha−1) and root mean square error (RMSE) of 26.0% (36.7 Mg ha−1) as the respective values for AGBProjected_2016 were 7.0% (9.9 Mg ha−1) and 21.5% (30.8 Mg ha−1). AGB2016_pred2014 had a bias of −19.6% (−27.7 Mg ha−1) and RMSE of 33.2% (46.9 Mg ha−1). By combining predictions of AGB2016 and AGBProjected_2016 at sample plot level as a weighted average, we were able to decrease the bias notably compared to estimates made on any single date. The lowest bias of −0.25% (−0.4 Mg ha−1) was obtained when equal weights of 0.5 were given to the AGBProjected_2016 and AGB2016 estimates. Respectively, RMSE of 20.9% (29.5 Mg ha−1) was obtained using equal weights. Thus, we conclude that combination of two date WorldView-2 stereo-imagery improved the reliability of AGB estimates on sample plots where forest growth was the only change between the two dates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".