Evaluation of Tree-Growth Rate in the Laurentides Wildlife Reserve Using GEDI and Airborne-LiDAR Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Loss of forest cover and derived effects on forest ecosystems services has led to the establishment of land management policies and forest monitoring systems, and consequently to the demand for accurate and multitemporal data on forest extent and structure. In recent years, spaceborne Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) missions, such as the Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) instrument, have facilitated the repeated acquisition of data on the vertical structure of vegetation. In this study, we designed an approach incorporating GEDI and airborne LiDAR data, in addition to detailed forestry inventory data, for estimating tree-growth dynamics for the Laurentides wildlife reserve in Canada. We estimated an average tree-growth rate of 0.32 ± 0.23 (SD) m/year for the study site and evaluated our results against field data and a time series of NDVI from Landsat images. The results are in agreement with expected patterns in tree-growth rates related to tree species and forest stand age, and the produced dataset is able to track disturbance events resulting in the loss of canopy height. Our study demonstrates the benefits of using spaceborne-LiDAR data for extending the temporal coverage of forestry inventories and highlights the ability of GEDI data for detecting changes in forests’ vertical structure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".