Application of a Hypergeometric Model in Simulating Canopy Gap Fraction and BRF for Forest Plantations on Sloping Terrains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of tree distribution and slope on canopy gap fraction (GF) and bidirectional reflectance factor (BRF) is shown here to be non-negligible. Trees are often assumed to be randomly distributed in natural forests due to random distribution of natural resources, but this assumption is not valid for forest plantations. A geometric optical model for forest plantations (GOFP) is a geometric optical model for forest plantations on horizontal surfaces based on the theory of exclusion distance among crowns. Sloping terrains change the exclusion distance among crowns, and inevitably affect the canopy GF and BRF. In this article, GOFP with a hypergeometric model (distances among trees are considered) on horizontal surfaces is modified as GOFP-T to simulate BRF for forest plantations on sloping terrains under two scenarios: (horizontal distances among crowns remain unchanged with slope) and (sloping distances among crowns remain unchanged with slope). Two three-dimensional (3-D) radiative transfer models (DART and LESS) and field measurements are used to evaluate and validate GOFP-T simulations. The results show that 1) the canopy GF, four component area ratios, and canopy BRF simulated by GOFP-T show high consistency with results from the two 3-D model: root-mean-square errors in GF, sunlit foliage, and sunlit ground are less than 0.02, 0.06, and 0.03, respectively; 2) forest coverage and canopy reflectance in GOFP-T are compared well with point cloud results from an airboard LiDAR system and Landsat 8 OLI surface reflectance products, respectively, indicating that GOFP-T has ability in simulating canopy reflectance for forest plantations on sloping terrains. GOFP-T with the hypergeometric model in this article is the first simple model to simulate canopy GF and BRF for forest plantations on sloping terrains.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".