Assessing Site Productivity via Remote Sensing—Age-Independent Site Index Estimation in Even-Aged Forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest productivity is a key driver of forest growth and yield and a critical information need for forest management and planning. Traditionally, this information has come from field plots, but these are expensive to measure and have limited coverage. Remote sensing, on the other hand, can provide forest inventory attributes on landscape scales and with a relatively low cost. A common predictor of forest productivity is site index (SI), traditionally estimated from age and height. In plantations, age can often be treated as a known quantity, but in natural-origin forests (of which Canada has vast swaths), age is often unknown and must be estimated, requiring expensive field work and resulting in a high level of error which, in turn, introduces error into SI estimates. The objective of this study is to generate estimates of SI from two successive LiDAR captures. The 99th percentiles (p99) of LiDAR returns from two successive captures 13 years apart were used along with species-specific SI curves to estimate SI. The results were compared to field-based estimates of SI for two major boreal species, jack pine and black spruce in managed and unmanaged conditions. Overall, the difference between the LiDAR-based SI and the field estimate was 2% with a relative mean squared error of 18%. For the few situations in which the height change was small or negative (less than 0.5%/year), SI was estimated from the average p99 and an assumed age of 100. The advantage of this method is that it does not require field sampling or estimates of age. Using two successive LiDAR captures, wall to wall estimates of SI can be generated at the grid cell level (e.g., 20 × 20 m), a level of detail generally not found in inventories. Overall, our results demonstrate the excellent potential for estimating SI from LiDAR alone, without age, to provide detailed productivity information for forest management and inventory that has been lacking in most large-scale inventories until now.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".