Estimation of National Forest Aboveground Biomass from Multi-Source Remotely Sensed Dataset with Machine Learning Algorithms in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forests are the largest terrestrial ecosystem carbon pool and provide the most important nature-based climate mitigation pathway. Compared with belowground biomass (BGB) and soil carbon, aboveground biomass (AGB) is more sensitive to human disturbance and climate change. Therefore, accurate forest AGB mapping will help us better assess the mitigation potential of forests against climate change. Here, we developed six models to estimate national forest AGB using six machine learning algorithms based on 52,415 spaceborne Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) footprints and 22 environmental features for China in 2007. The results showed that the ensemble model generated by the stacking algorithm performed best with a determination coefficient (R2) of 0.76 and a root mean square error (RMSE) of 22.40 Mg/ha. The verifications at pixel level (R2 = 0.78, RMSE = 16.08 Mg/ha) and provincial level (R2 = 0.53, RMSE = 14.05 Mg/ha) indicated the accuracy of the estimated forest AGB map is satisfactory. The forest AGB density of China was estimated to be 53.16 ± 1.63 Mg/ha, with a total of 11.00 ± 0.34 Pg. Net primary productivity (NPP), normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), enhanced vegetation index (EVI), average annual rainfall, and annual temperature anomaly are the five most important environmental factors for forest AGB estimation. The forest AGB map we produced is expected to reduce the uncertainty of forest carbon source and sink estimations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".