Augmenting size models for <i>Pinus strobiformis</i> seedlings using dimensional estimates from unmanned aircraft systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In forestry, common garden experiments traditionally require manual measurements and visual inspections. Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are a newer method of monitoring plants that is potentially more efficient than traditional techniques. This study had two objectives: to assess the size and mortality of Pinus strobiformis Engelm. seedlings using UAS and to predict the second-year seedling size using manual measurements from the first year and from UAS size estimates. Raised boxes containing 150 seedlings were surveyed twice, one year apart, using multispectral UAS. Seedling heights and diameters at root collar (DRC) were measured manually in both years. We found that size estimates made using a vegetation mask were suitable predictors for size, while spectral indices were not. Furthermore, we provided evidence that inclusion of UAS size estimates as predictors improves the fit of the models. Our study suggests that common variables used in forest monitoring are not necessarily best suited for seedlings. Therefore, we created a new variable, called the longitudinal area (height × DRC), which proved to be a significant predictor for both height and DRC. Finally, we demonstrate that seedling mortality can be effectively measured from remotely sensed data, which is useful for common garden and regeneration studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".