MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400676053 · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002700

Individual canopy tree species maps for the National Ecological Observatory Network

2024· article· en· W4400676053 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ben Weinstein, Sergio Marconi, Alina Zare, Stephanie Bohlman, Aditya Singh, Sarah Graves, Lukas Magee, Daniel J. Johnson, Sydne Record, Vanessa E. Rubio, Nathan G. Swenson, Philip A. Townsend, Thomas T. Veblen, Robert A. Andrus, Ethan P. White

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFlorida Agricultural Experiment StationNational Institute of Food and AgricultureNuclear Safety and Security CommissionGordon and Betty Moore FoundationHatchU.S. Department of AgricultureNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyCanopyEcologyTree canopyObservatory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ecology of forest ecosystems depends on the composition of trees. Capturing fine-grained information on individual trees at broad scales provides a unique perspective on forest ecosystems, forest restoration, and responses to disturbance. Individual tree data at wide extents promises to increase the scale of forest analysis, biogeographic research, and ecosystem monitoring without losing details on individual species composition and abundance. Computer vision using deep neural networks can convert raw sensor data into predictions of individual canopy tree species through labeled data collected by field researchers. Using over 40,000 individual tree stems as training data, we create landscape-level species predictions for over 100 million individual trees across 24 sites in the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). Using hierarchical multi-temporal models fine-tuned for each geographic area, we produce open-source data available as 1 km2 shapefiles with individual tree species prediction, as well as crown location, crown area, and height of 81 canopy tree species. Site-specific models had an average performance of 79% accuracy covering an average of 6 species per site, ranging from 3 to 15 species per site. All predictions are openly archived and have been uploaded to Google Earth Engine to benefit the ecology community and overlay with other remote sensing assets. We outline the potential utility and limitations of these data in ecology and computer vision research, as well as strategies for improving predictions using targeted data sampling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS BiologySame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207