Use of Multi-Temporal LiDAR to Quantify Fertilization Effects on Stand Volume and Biomass in Late-Rotation Coastal Douglas-Fir Forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest fertilization is common in coastal British Columbia as a means to increase wood production and potentially enhance carbon sequestration. Generally, the effects of fertilization are determined by measuring sample plots pre- and post-treatment, resulting in fertilization effects being determined for a limited portion of the treatment area. Applications of remote sensing-based enhanced forest inventories have allowed for estimations to expand to the wider forested area. However, these applications have not focused on monitoring the effects of silvicultural treatments. The objective of this research was to examine if a multi-temporal application of the LiDAR area-based method can be used to detect the fertilization effects on volume, biomass, and height in a second-growth Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) stand. The study area on Vancouver Island was fertilized in January 2007, and sample plots were established in 2011. LiDAR acquisitions were made in 2004, prior to fertilization, and in 2008, 2011, and 2016, covering both treated and untreated areas. A total of 29 paired LiDAR blocks, comprised of four 20 m resolution raster cells, were selected on either side of the fertilization boundary for analysis of the effects across several different stand types differing in the percentage of Douglas-fir, site index, and age. Random forest (RF) plot-level models were developed to estimate total stem volume and total stem biomass for each year of LiDAR acquisition using an area-based approach. Plot level results showed an increase in stem volume by 13% fertilized over control from 2005 to 2011, which was similar to a 14% increase in above-ground carbon stocks estimated using a tree-ring stand reconstruction approach. Plot-level RF models showed R2 values of 0.86 (volume) and 0.92 (biomass) with relative cross-validated root mean square errors of 12.5% (volume) and 11.9% (biomass). For both the sample plots and LiDAR blocks, statistical results indicated no significant differences in volume or biomass between treatments. However, significant differences in height increments were detected between treatments in LiDAR blocks. The results from this research highlight the promising potential for the use of enhanced forest inventory methods to rapidly expand the assessment of treatment effects beyond sample plots to the stand, block, or landscape level.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".