MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324373470 · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2023.113529

Estimating and mapping forest age across Canada's forested ecosystems

2023· article· en· W4324373470 on OpenAlexafffundabout
James C. Maltman, Txomin Hermosilla, Michael A. Wulder, Nicholas C. Coops, Joanne C. White

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing of Environment · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Resources CanadaAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsDisturbance (geology)Remote sensingForest ecologyEnvironmental scienceForest dynamicsTree canopyForest managementProxy (statistics)Satellite imageryForest restorationSustainable forest managementPhysical geographyCanopyGeographyEcosystemEcologyComputer scienceAgroforestryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest age is an important variable for assessments of biodiversity and habitat, sustainable forest and land management, as well as forest carbon science and modeling. Tree and stand age are typically measured directly on site, or estimated through visual photo interpretation, with spatially explicit maps of forest age not often produced over large areas. Remote sensing enables the generation of wall-to wall, spatially explicit maps of disturbance events within the satellite record; however, as disturbance is relatively rare on the landscape in a given year, additional means of determining forest age are required. As reviewed herein, the estimation of forest age using optical Earth observation data is challenging due to the limited spectral link to the attribute of interest, especially as forests get older. The temporally dictated multi-method approach to forest age estimation outlined herein acknowledges these limitations, by applying the approach that is best suited to the quality of the information available, depending on the epoch of interest. In this research, we combine three approaches to estimate forest age at a 30-m spatial resolution using Landsat data. The first approach uses change detection protocols to detect disturbance from 1985 to 2019, with time since disturbance used as a proxy for forest age. The second approach uses Landsat surface reflectance composites to identify pixels exhibiting evidence of recovery from a disturbance that occurred within the twenty years prior to 1985, allowing for the extension of forest age estimates to 1965. Finally, given an understanding of the linkage between forest age and canopy height, inverted allometric equations are coupled with maps of forest structure and productivity metrics to model forest age for those pixels that show no evidence of disturbance or recovery to a maximum of 150 years, acknowledging that uncertainty in age estimate increases with increasing age. Combining these three approaches, forest age estimates are made for every treed pixel found within the 650 Mha forested ecosystems of Canada. Nationwide, mean estimated forest age for forests ≤150 years old (representing 94.1% of treed area) was 70 years (standard deviation = 32.1 years). For confidence building, forest age estimates were compared to reported forest age in the National Forest Inventory (NFI) both spatially and aspatially. Nationally, 5.9% of the forested area was estimated to be older than 150 years, while 9.5% of area within in the NFI sample was recorded as older than 150 years. The median estimated forest age for forested pixels ≤150 years old was 68 years while median forest age reported in the NFI was 73 years, with regional variability matching expectations related to disturbance regimes and productivity. Spatially explicit maps of forest age provide important information for understanding forest ecosystems and can be used to inform a wide range of policy, science, and management needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations81
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote Sensing of EnvironmentSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207