Modelling growing stock volume of forest stands with various ALS area-based approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Airborne laser scanning (ALS) is one of the most innovative remote sensing tools with a recognized important utility for characterizing forest stands. Currently, the most common ALS-based method applied in the estimation of forest stand characteristics is the area-based approach (ABA). The aim of this study was to analyse how three ABA methods affect growing stock volume (GSV) estimates at the sample plot and forest stand levels. We examined (1) an ABA with point cloud metrics, (2) an ABA with canopy height model (CHM) metrics and (3) an ABA with aggregated individual tree CHM-based metrics. What is more, three different modelling techniques: multiple linear regression, boosted regression trees and random forest, were applied to all ABA methods, which yielded a total of nine combinations to report. An important element of this work is also the empirical verification of the methods for estimating the GSV error for individual forest stand. All nine combinations of the ABA methods and different modelling techniques yielded very similar predictions of GSV for both sample plots and forest stands. The root mean squared error (RMSE) of estimated GSV ranged from 75 to 85 m3 ha−1 (RMSE% = 20.5–23.4 per cent) and from 57 to 64 m3 ha−1 (RMSE% = 16.4–18.3 per cent) for plots and stands, respectively. As a result of the research, it can be concluded that GSV modelling with the use of different ALS processing approaches and statistical methods leads to very similar results. Therefore, the choice of a GSV prediction method may be more determined by the availability of data and competences than by the requirement to use a particular method.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".