Modeling sub-boreal forest canopy bulk density in Minnesota, USA, using synthetic aperture radar and optical satellite sensor data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background National estimates of canopy bulk density (CBD; kg m−3) for fire behavior modeling are generated and supported by the LANDFIRE program. However, locally derived estimates of CBD at finer scales are preferred over national estimates if they exist, as the absolute accuracy of the LANDFIRE CBD product is low and varies regionally. Active sensors (e.g., lidar or radar) are better suited for this task, as passive sensors are ill equipped to detect differences among key vertical fuel structures, such as coniferous surface fuels (≤2 m high) and canopy fuels above this threshold—a key categorical fuel distinction in fire behavior modeling. However, previous efforts to map CBD using lidar sensor data in the Superior National Forest (SNF) of Minnesota, USA, yielded substandard results. Therefore, we use a combination of dormant-season synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and optical satellite sensor data to (1) expand detectability of coniferous fuels among mixed forest canopies to improve the accuracy of CBD modeling and (2) better understand the influence of surface fuels in this regard. Response variables included FuelCalc output and indirect estimates of maximum burnable fuel based on canopy gap fraction (CGF) measured at ground level and 2 m above ground level. Results SAR variables were important predictors of CBD and total fuel density (TFD) in all independent model calibrations with ground data, in which we define TFD as the sum of CBD and primarily live coniferous surface fuel density (SFD) 0 to 2 m above ground. Exploratory estimates of TFD appeared biased to the presence of sapling-stage conifer fuel on measures of CGF at the ground level. Thus, modeling efforts to calibrate SFD with satellite sensor data failed. Both CGF-based and FuelCalc-based field estimates of CBD yielded close unity with satellite-calibrated estimates, although substantial differences in data distributions existed. Estimates of CBD from the widest CGF zenith angle range (0 to 38°) correlated best with FuelCalc-based CBD estimates, while both resulted in maximum biomass values that exceeded those considered typical for the SNF. Model results from the narrowest zenith angle range (0 to 7°) produced estimates of CBD that were more in line with values considered typical. LANDFIRE’s estimates of CBD were weakly, but significantly (P = 0.05), correlated to both narrow- and wide-angle CGF-based estimates of CBD, but not with FuelCalc-based estimates. Conclusions The combined use of field estimates of CBD, based on indirect measures of CGF according to Keane et al. (Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35:724–739, 2005), with SAR and optical satellite sensor data demonstrates the potential of this method for mapping CBD in the Upper Midwest, USA. Results suggested that the presence of live, coniferous surface fuels neither confounds remote detection nor precludes mapping of CBD in this region using SAR satellite sensor data, as C- and L-band idiosyncrasies likely limit the visibility of these smaller understory fuels from space. Nevertheless, research using direct measures of burnable SFD for calibrations with SAR satellite sensor data should be conducted to more definitively answer this remote detection question, as we suspect substantial bias among measures of CGF from ground level when estimating SFD as the difference between TFD and CBD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".