Forest Inventory and Diversity Attribute Modelling Using Structural and Intensity Metrics from Multi-Spectral Airborne Laser Scanning Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airborne laser scanning (ALS) systems tuned to the near-infrared (NIR; 1064 nm) wavelength have become the best available data source for characterizing vegetation structure. Proliferation of multi-spectral ALS (M-ALS) data with lasers tuned at two additional wavelengths (commonly 532 nm; green, and 1550 nm; short-wave infrared (SWIR)) has promoted interest in the benefit of additional wavelengths for forest inventory modelling. In this study, structural and intensity based M-ALS metrics were derived from wavelengths independently and combined to assess their value for modelling forest inventory attributes (Lorey’s height (HL), gross volume (V), and basal area (BA)) and overstorey species diversity (Shannon index (H), Simpson index (D), and species richness (R)) in a diverse mixed-wood forest in Ontario, Canada. The area-based approach (ABA) to forest attribute modelling was used, where structural- and intensity-based metrics were calculated and used as inputs for random forest models. Structural metrics from the SWIR channel (SWIRstruc) were found to be the most accurate for H and R (%RMSE = 14.3 and 14.9), and NIRstruc were most accurate for V (%RMSE = 20.4). The addition of intensity metrics marginally increased the accuracy of HL models for SWIR and combined channels (%RMSE = 7.5). Additionally, a multi-resolution (0.5, 1, 2 m) voxel analysis was performed, where intensity data were used to calculate a suite of spectral indices. Plot-level summaries of spectral indices from each voxel resolution alone, as well as combined with structural metrics from the NIR wavelength, were used as random forest predictors. The addition of structural metrics from the NIR band reduced %RMSE for all models with HL, BA, and V realizing the largest improvements. Intensity metrics were found to be important variables in the 1 m and 2 m voxel models for D and H. Overall, results indicated that structural metrics were the most appropriate. However, the inclusion of intensity metrics, and continued testing of their potential for modelling diversity indices is warranted, given minor improvements when included. Continued analyses using M-ALS intensity metrics and voxel-based indices would help to better understand the value of these data, and their future role in forest management.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".