Tree-CRowNN: A Network for Estimating Forest Stand Density from VHR Aerial Imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating the number of trees within a forest stand, i.e., the forest stand density (FSD), is challenging at large scales. Recently, researchers have turned to a combination of remote sensing and machine learning techniques to derive these estimates. However, in most cases, the developed models rely heavily upon additional data such as LiDAR-based elevations or multispectral information and are mostly applied to managed environments rather than natural/mixed forests. Furthermore, they often require the time-consuming manual digitization or masking of target features, or an annotation using a bounding box rather than a simple point annotation. Here, we introduce the Tree Convolutional Row Neural Network (Tree-CRowNN), an alternative model for tree counting inspired by Multiple-Column Neural Network architecture to estimate the FSD over 12.8 m × 12.8 m plots from high-resolution RGB aerial imagery. Our model predicts the FSD with very high accuracy (MAE: ±2.1 stems/12.8 m2, RMSE: 3.0) over a range of forest conditions and shows promise in linking to Sentinel-2 imagery for broad-scale mapping (R2: 0.43, RMSE: 3.9 stems/12.8 m2). We believe that the satellite imagery linkage will be strengthened with future efforts, and transfer learning will enable the Tree-CRowNN model to predict the FSD accurately in other ecozones.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".