Forest Site and Type Variability in ALS-Based Forest Resource Inventory Attribute Predictions over Three Ontario Forest Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade, spatially-explicit modeling of landscape-scale forest attributes for forest inventories has greatly benefitted from airborne laser scanning (ALS) and the area-based approach (ABA) to derive wall-to-wall maps of these forest attributes. Which ALS-derived metrics to include when modeling forest inventory attributes, and how prediction accuracies vary over forest types depends largely on the structural complexity of the forest(s) being studied. Hence, the purpose of this study was to (i) examine the usefulness of adding texture and intensity metrics to height-based ALS metrics for the prediction of several forest resource inventory (FRI) attributes in one boreal and two Great Lakes, St. Lawrence (GLSL) forest region sites in Ontario and (ii) quantify and compare the site and forest type variability within the context of the FRI prediction accuracies. Basal area (BA), quadratic mean diameter-at-breast height (QMD), and stem density (S) were predicted using the ABA and a nonparametric Random Forests (RF) regression model. At the site level, prediction accuracies (i.e., expressed as RMSE (Root Mean Square Error), bias, and R2) improved at the three sites when texture and intensity metrics were included in the predictor set, even though no significant differences (p > 0.05) could be detected using the nonparametric RMANOVA test. Stem density benefitted the most from the inclusion of texture and intensity, particularly in the GLSL sites (% RMSE improved up to 6%). Combining site and forest type results indicated that improvements in site level predictions, due to the addition of texture and intensity metrics to the ALS predictor set, were the result of changes in prediction accuracy in some but not all forest types present at a site and that these changes in prediction accuracy were site and FRI attribute specific. The nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test indicated that prediction errors between the different forest types were significantly different (p ≤ 0.01). In the boreal site, prediction accuracies for conifer forest types were higher than for deciduous and mixedwoods. Such patterns in prediction accuracy among forest types and FRI attributes could not be observed in the GLSL sites. In the Petawawa Research Forest (PRF), we did detect the impact of silvicultural treatments especially on QMD and S predictions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".