Evaluation of UAS LiDAR data for tree segmentation and diameter estimation in boreal forests using trunk- and crown-based methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Very high point density laser scanning data from unmanned aerial systems (UAS) can be used to segment the trunks of individual trees. Such segmentation (e.g., individual trunk segmentation (ITS)) is useful, for example, in the estimation of diameter at breast height (DBH), which in turn is needed for the estimation of other tree and stand attributes, such as stem volume and diameter of the basal area median tree (DGM). In this paper, we assess the estimation of DBH directly from UAS LiDAR data in open and closed canopy conditions that represent the range of operational conditions encountered in boreal forests in Finland. We also compare trunk-based DBH estimates to corresponding estimates from individual tree crown segmentation (ITC) and fuse the results from the trunk- and crown-based estimates. The results showed that trunk segmentation performed slightly better than ITC in open canopy areas, whereas ITC performed better in closed canopy areas. The DBH prediction error was smaller for ITS (3.0 cm) than ITC (3.9 cm) when considering the trees that were recognized by both methods. We also conclude that a hybrid method, where both segmented tree trunks and tree crowns are fused, considerably increases the number of correctly segmented trees but does not decrease the prediction error associated with DGM compared to using either ITC or ITS individually.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".