Canopy and surface fuel estimations using RPAS and ground-based point clouds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Forest management activities intended to reduce wildfire risk rely on accurate characterizations of the amount and arrangement of canopy and surface fuels. Metrics that describe these fuels are typically estimated with various systems that transform plot-level field data into metrics that can be used within fire behaviour models. Remote sensing data have long been used to estimate these metrics across large spatial scales, but more advanced, high-density point clouds have the potential to estimate these metrics with higher accuracy. This study collected LiDAR and digital aerial photogrammetric (DAP) point clouds from a remotely piloted aerial system (RPAS), as well as mobile laser scanning (MLS) point clouds from a mobile ground-based system, and compared their ability to estimate fuel metrics. This involved the extraction of predictor variables from each point cloud, of which small subsets were used to estimate various fuel metrics. These included six overstory canopy metrics (stand height, canopy cover, tree density, canopy fuel load, canopy bulk density and canopy base height), three diameter at breast height (DBH)–related metrics (stand density index, basal area and quadratic mean diameter) and three surface fuel metrics (total woody debris (TWD), coarse woody debris (CWD) and fine woody debris (FWD)). Overall, canopy metrics were estimated most accurately by the RPAS LiDAR models, although none of the point clouds were able to accurately estimate DBH-related metrics. For the other six canopy metrics, RPAS LiDAR models had an average R2 value of 0.70; DAP – 0.63 and MLS – 0.63. CWD (>7 cm) and TWD loads were estimated most accurately by the MLS models (average R2 values – 0.70), followed by the RPAS LiDAR – 0.38 and DAP – 0.13. None of these models were able to accurately estimate FWD loads (≤7 cm in diameter), with the three types of point clouds having a maximum R2 value of 0.08. Overall, this research shows the relative ability of three types of high-density point clouds to estimate metrics relevant for fire behaviour modeling.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".