MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001525963 · doi:10.3390/f11020141

Estimating Coarse Woody Debris Volume Using Image Analysis and Multispectral LiDAR

2020· article· en· W3001525963 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gustavo Lopes Queiroz, Gregory J. McDermid, Julia Linke, Christopher Hopkinson, Jahan Kariyeva

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Biodiversity Monitoring InstituteUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMultispectral imageLidarCoarse woody debrisRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceCanopyMean squared errorVolume (thermodynamics)Forest inventoryForest managementGeographyEcologyMathematicsStatisticsAgroforestryHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coarse woody debris (CWD, parts of dead trees) is an important factor in forest management, given its roles in promoting local biodiversity and unique microhabitats, as well as providing carbon storage and fire fuel. However, parties interested in monitoring CWD abundance lack accurate methods to measure CWD accurately and extensively. Here, we demonstrate a novel strategy for mapping CWD volume (m3) across a 4300-hectare study area in the boreal forest of Alberta, Canada using optical imagery and an infra-canopy vegetation-index layer derived from multispectral aerial LiDAR. Our models predicted CWD volume with a coefficient of determination (R2) value of 0.62 compared to field data, and a root-mean square error (RMSE) of 0.224 m3/100 m2. Models using multispectral LiDAR data in addition to image-analysis data performed with up to 12% lower RMSE than models using exclusively image-analysis layers. Site managers and researchers requiring reliable and comprehensive maps of CWD volume may benefit from the presented workflow, which aims to streamline the process of CWD measurement. As multispectral LiDAR radiometric calibration routines are developed and standardized, we expect future studies to benefit increasingly more from such products for CWD detection underneath canopy cover.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207