MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999666055 · doi:10.3390/rs12010201

Predicting Carbon Accumulation in Temperate Forests of Ontario, Canada Using a LiDAR-Initialized Growth-and-Yield Model

2020· article· en· W2999666055 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Paulina T. Marczak, Karin Y. van Ewijk, Paul Treitz, Neal A. Scott, Donald C. E. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLidarTemperate climateForest inventoryCarbon stockEnvironmental scienceBasal areaClimate changeCarbon fibersAtmospheric sciencesCarbon sequestrationStock (firearms)Abundance (ecology)ForestryPhysical geographyMathematicsEcologyForest managementRemote sensingAgroforestryGeographyCarbon dioxideBiologyPhysicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate warming has led to an urgent need for improved estimates of carbon accumulation in uneven-aged, mixed temperate forests, where high uncertainty remains. We investigated the feasibility of using LiDAR-derived forest attributes to initialize a growth and yield (G&Y) model in complex stands at the Petawawa Research Forest (PRF) in eastern Ontario, Canada; i.e., can G&Y models based on LiDAR provide accurate predictions of aboveground carbon accumulation in complex forests compared to traditional inventory-based estimates? Applying a local G&Y model, we forecasted aboveground carbon stock (tons/ha) and accumulation (tons/ha/yr) using recurring plot measurements from 2012–2016, FVS1. We applied statistical predictors derived from LiDAR to predict stem density (SD), stem diameter distribution (SDD), and basal area distribution (BA_dist). These data, along with measured species abundance, were used to initialize a second model (FVS2). A third model was tested using LiDAR-initialized tree lists and photo-interpreted estimates of species abundance (i.e., FVS3). The carbon stock projections for 2016 from the inventory-based G&Y model) were equivalent to validation carbon stocks measured in 2016 at all size-class levels (p < 0.05), while LiDAR-based G&Y models were not. None of the models were equivalent to validation data for accumulation (p > 0.05). At the plot level, LiDAR-based predictions of carbon accumulation over a nine-year period did not differ when using either inventory or photo-interpreted species (p < 0.05). Using a constant mortality rate, we also found statistical equivalency of inventory and photo-interpreted accumulation models for all size classes ≥17 cm. These results suggest that more precise information is needed on tree characteristics than we could derive from LiDAR, but that plot-level species information is not as critical for predictions of carbon accumulation in mixed-species forests. Further work is needed on the use of LiDAR to quantify stand properties before this technique can be used to replace recurring plot measurements to quantify carbon accumulation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207