Use of Sentinel-2 Data to Improve Multivariate Tree Species Composition in a Forest Resource Inventory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aerial-photo interpreted inventories of forest resources, including tree species composition, are valuable in forest resource management, but are expensive to create and can be relatively inaccurate. Because of differences among tree species in their spectral properties and seasonal phenologies, it might be possible to improve such forest resource inventory information (FRI) by using it in concert with multispectral satellite information from multiple time periods. We used Sentinel-2 information from nine spectral bands and 12 dates within a two-year period to model multivariate percent tree species composition in >51,000 forest stands in the FRI of south-central Ontario, Canada. Accuracy of random forest (RF) and convolutional neural network (CNN) predictions were tested using species-specific basal area information from 155 0.25-ha field plots. Additionally, we created models using the Sentinel-2 information in concert with the field data and compared the accuracy of these models and the FRI-based models by use of basal areas from a second (13.7-ha) field data set. Based on average R2 values across species in the two field data sets, the Sentinel-FRI models outperformed the FRI, showing 1.5- and 1.7-fold improvements relative to the FRI for RF and 2.1- and 2.2-fold improvements for CNN (mean R2: 0.141–0.169 (FRI); 0.217–0.295 (RF); 0.307–0.352 (CNN)). Models created with the field data performed even better: improvements relative to the FRI were 2.1-fold for RF and 2.8-fold for CNN (mean R2: 0.169 (FRI); 0.356 (RF); 0.469 (CNN)). As predicted, R2 values between FRI- and field-trained predictions were higher than R2 values with the FRI. Of the 21 tree species evaluated, 8 relatively rare species had poor models in all cases. Our multivariate approach allowed us to use more FRI stands in model creation than if we had been restricted to stands dominated by single species and allowed us to map species abundances at higher resolution. It might be possible to improve models further by use of tree stem maps and incorporation of the effects of canopy disturbances.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".