Modelling tree biomass using direct and additive methods with point cloud deep learning in a temperate mixed forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airborne laser scanning (ALS) data has been widely used for total aboveground tree biomass (AGB) modelling, however, there is less research focusing on estimating specific tree biomass components (wood, branches, bark, and foliage). Knowledge about these biomass components is essential for carbon accounting, understanding forest nutrient cycling, and other applications. In this study, we compare additive AGB estimation (sum of estimated components) with direct AGB estimation using deep neural network (DNN) and random forest (RF) models. We utilise two point cloud DNNs: point-based Dynamic Graph Convolutional Neural Network (DGCNN) and Octree-based Convolutional Neural Network (OCNN). DNN and RF models were trained using a dataset comprised of 2336 sample plots from a mixed temperate forest in New Brunswick, Canada. Results indicate that additive AGB models perform similarly to direct models in terms of coefficient of determination (R2) and root-mean square error (RMSE), and reduced the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) by 22% on average. Compared to RF, the DNNs provided a small improvement in performance, with OCNN explaining 5% more variation in the data (R2 = 0.76) and reducing MAPE by 20% on average. Overall, this study showcases the effectiveness of additive tree AGB models and highlights the potential of DNNs for enhanced AGB estimation. To further improve DNN performance, we recommend using larger training datasets, implementing hyperparameter optimization, and incorporating additional data such as multispectral imagery.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".