Comparison of Deep and Machine Learning Approaches for Quebec Tree Species Classification Using a Combination of Multispectral and LiDAR Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accessing tree species information is required for making appropriate decisions in forest management. 3D photo-interpretation using high spatial resolution aerial imagery is used to provide information on tree species in the province of Quebec. However, the shortage of qualified interpreters and the increasing costs of 3D photo-interpretation have affected the production of the forest inventory. In this study, we employed deep and machine learning models to classify nine tree species (i.e., paper birch, yellow birch, red maple, poplar, black spruce, white spruce, tamarack, jack pine, and balsam fir). We used a combination of spectral and vertical structural information extracted from 30-cm aerial imagery and airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data in a 9,100 km2 forested area in Quebec, Canada. The results indicated that Dense Convolution Network (DenseNet) achieved the best overall accuracy of 78%, outperforming machine learning methods by 5%. In addition, the models’ performance was independently assessed using permanent and temporary ground sample plots, acknowledging the superiority of DenseNet in terms of overall accuracy (73%) in predicting the dominant species. Our results suggest that the combination of aerial imagery and airborne LiDAR data, using deep learning approaches, can be applied to accurately map tree species.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".