The Horizontal Distribution of Branch Biomass in European Beech: A Model Based on Measurements and TLS Based Proxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest biomass is currently among the most important and most researched target variables in forest monitoring. The common approach of observing individual tree biomass in forest inventory is to assign the total tree biomass to the dimensionless point of the tree position. However, the tree biomass, in particular in the crown, is horizontally distributed above the crown projection area. This horizontal distribution of individual tree biomass (HBD) has not attracted much attention—but if quantified, it can improve biomass estimation and help to better represent the spatial distribution of forest fuel. In this study, we derive a first empirical model of the branch HBD for individual trees of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.). We destructively measured 23 beech trees to derive an empirical model for the branch HBD. We then applied Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) to a subset of 17 trees to test a simple point cloud metric predicting the branch HBD. We observed similarities between a branch HBD and commonly applied taper functions, which inspired our HBD model formulations. The models performed well in representing the HBD both for the measured biomass, and the TLS-based metric. Our models may be used as first approximations to the HBD of individual trees—while our methodological approach may extend to trees of different sizes and species.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".