Tree species, crown cover, and age as determinants of the vertical distribution of airborne LiDAR returns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Key message We assessed even-aged stand vertical distributions of LiDAR returns and found that tree species, age, and crown cover each have a distinct pattern that together explains up to 47% of the variation. Abstract Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) provides information on the vertical structure of forest stands enabling detailed and extensive ecosystem study. The vertical structure is often summarized by scalar features and data-reduction techniques that limit the interpretation of results. Instead, we quantified the influence of three variables, species, crown cover, and age, on the vertical distribution of airborne LiDAR returns from forest stands. We studied 5428 regular, even-aged stands in Quebec (Canada) with five dominant species: balsam fir [ Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.], paper birch ( Betula papyrifera Marsh), black spruce [ Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP], white spruce ( Picea glauca Moench) and aspen ( Populus tremuloides Michx.). We modeled the vertical distribution against the three variables using a functional general linear model and a novel nonparametric graphical test of significance. Results indicate that LiDAR returns from aspen stands had the most uniform vertical distribution. Balsam fir and white birch distributions were similar and centered at around 50% of the stand height, and black spruce and white spruce distributions were skewed to below 30% of stand height ( $$p$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math> <0.001). Increased crown cover concentrated the distributions around 50% of stand height. Increasing age gradually shifted the distributions higher in the stand for stands younger than 70-years, before plateauing and slowly declining at 90–120 years. Results suggest that the vertical distributions of LiDAR returns depend on the three variables studied.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".