MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381283936 · doi:10.3126/njg.v22i1.55123

Estimation of Above Ground Biomass and Carbon Stock using UAV images

2023· article· en· W4381283936 on OpenAlexaff
Sandesh Upadhyaya, Prabin Gyawali, Sambhav Sapkota, Nishan Neupane, Manoj Neupane

Bibliographic record

VenueNepalese journal of geoinformatics/Journal of geoinformatics Nepal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsFanshawe College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceTree allometryAllometryGreenhouse gasCarbon stockCarbon sequestrationStock (firearms)ForestryAtmospheric sciencesBiomass (ecology)Remote sensingMathematicsCarbon dioxideClimate changeEcologyGeographyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forests have a vital role in maintaining global climate stability by removing greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide from environment. Estimation of carbon stock is crucial in quantifying the amount of carbon that is present in the forest. The estimation of forest biomass and carbon stock through field measurements is a challenging and timeconsuming task. Here in this scenario, our study aims to estimate carbon stock in a forest area using the hybrid technique i.e., aerial survey and ground survey. We used low-altitude remote sensing data acquired by UAV to estimate biomass and carbon stock in an efficient way compared to the traditional techniques. We developed an orthomosaic from the collected aerial imageries and manually delineated tree crowns to obtain crown projection area (CPA) for the entire study area using GIS tools. Our study area contained a mixed species with Pinus Wallichiana to be the dominant species while other species are negligible. Using field-measured tree height and diameter at breast height (DBH) as input, we estimated above-ground biomass (AGB) with an allometric equation and then used a factor value to estimate carbon stock or aboveground carbon (AGC) for six sample plots. Next, we developed a relationship between CPA and carbon stock and validated it by comparing the carbon stock values obtained from the allometric equation for the remaining four sample plots. Among the various developed model, 4th order Polynomial model was chosen due to its highest coefficient of correlation. After the model validation was done the AGC of whole study area was obtained by using the CPA delineated manually from the orthomosaic image. The total AGC and AGB obtained for our study area which was about 7 hectare was 210.7480 tons and 448.4 tons respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNepalese journal of geoinformatics/Journal of geoinformatics NepalSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207