Prediction of Diameter Distributions with Multimodal Models Using LiDAR Data in Subtropical Planted Forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tree diameter distributions are essential for the calculation of stem volume and biomass, as well as simulation of growth and yield and to understand timber assortments. Accurate and reliable prediction of tree diameter distributions is critical for optimizing forest structure compositions, scheduling silvicultural operations and promoting sustainable management. In this study, we investigated the potential of airborne Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data for predicting tree diameter distributions using a bimodal finite mixture model (FMM) and a multimodal k-nearest neighbor (KNN) model (compared to the unimodal Weibull model (UWM)) over a subtropical planted forest in southern China. To do so, we first evaluated the capability of various LiDAR predictions (i.e., the bimodality coefficient (BC) and Lorenz-based indicators) to stratify forest structural types into unimodal and multimodal stands. Once the best LiDAR prediction for the differentiation was determined, the parameters of UWM (in non-specific and species-specific models) and FMM (in structure-specific models) were estimated by LiDAR-derived metrics and the tree diameter distributions of stands were generated by the estimated LiDAR parameters. When KNN was applied for constructing diameter distributions, optimal KNN strategies, including number of neighbors k, response configurations and imputation methods (i.e., Most Similar Neighbor (MSN) and Random Forest (RF)) for different species were heuristically determined. Finally, the predictive performance of estimated LiDAR the parameters of UWM, FMM and KNN for predicting diameter distributions were assessed. The results showed that LiDAR-predicted Lorenz-based indicators performed best for differentiation. Parameters of UWM and FMM were predicted well and the species-specific models had higher accuracies than the non-specific models. Overall, RF imputation from KNN with an optimal response set (i.e., DBH) were was stable than MSN imputation when k = 5 neighbors. In addition, the inclusion of bimodal FMM for differentiated all plots generally produced a more accurate result (Mean eR = 40.85, Mean eP = 0.20) than multimodal KNN (Mean eR = 52.19, Mean eP = 0.26), whereas the UWM produced the lowest performance (Mean eR = 52.31, Mean eP = 0.26). This study demonstrated the benefits of multimodal models with LiDAR for estimating diameter distributions for supporting forest inventory and sustainable forest management in subtropical planted forests.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".