The Best of Both Worlds? Integrating Sentinel-2 Images and airborne LiDAR to Characterize Forest Regeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustainable forest management relies on practices ensuring vigorous post-harvest regeneration. Data on regeneration structure and composition are often collected through intensive field surveys. Remote sensing technologies (e.g., Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), satellite imagery) can cover a much larger spatial extent, but their ability to estimate regeneration characteristics is often challenged by the obstruction associated with canopy foliage. Here, we determined whether the integration of LiDAR and Sentinel-2 images can increase the accuracy of sapling density estimates and whether this accuracy decreased with canopy cover in the Acadian forest of New Brunswick, Canada. Using random forest regression, we compared the accuracy of three models (LiDAR and Sentinel-2 images alone or combined) to estimate sapling density for two species groups: saplings of all species or commercial species only. The integration of both sensors did not increase the accuracy of sapling density estimates, nor did it reduce the negative influence of canopy cover for either species group compared to LiDAR, but it increased the accuracy by approximately 15% relative to Sentinel-2 images. Under very high canopy cover, the accuracy of density estimates for all species combined was significantly lower with Sentinel-2 images only. We recommend using LiDAR and high-resolution satellite images acquired in the fall to obtain more accurate estimates of sapling density.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".