MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406110876 · doi:10.1016/j.geomat.2025.100047

Modelling above ground biomass for a mixed-tree urban arboretum forest based on a LiDAR-derived canopy height model and field-sampled data

2025· article· en· W4406110876 on OpenAlex
Jigme Thinley, Catherine Marina Pickering, Christopher E. Ndehedehe

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGEOMATICA · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanopyLidarBiomass (ecology)Tree canopyTree (set theory)Field (mathematics)ForestryEnvironmental scienceGeographyAgroforestryRemote sensingMathematicsEcologyBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is an increasing recognition of the value of forests for carbon storage, and hence interest in estimating Above Ground Biomass (AGB) for individual trees and across forests. Field-based inventories of AGB for hundreds of trees based on variables such as height and Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) can be costly and labor intensive, and hence there is increasing interest in evaluating remote sensing methods as an alternative. In this study, we assessed the suitability of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) derived Canopy Height Model (CHM) based on drone data to estimate tree heights and hence AGB in a mixed species (56 species) even aged (~10 years old) arboretum in subtropical Queensland, Australia. First field-based estimates of AGB were obtained for a stratified random sample of 287 trees across the arboretum based on height, DBH and species wood density. Then CHM values was obtained based on LiDAR data for the whole arboretum and compared with the field data. The CHM values were correlated with field data for individual trees including height (r=0.85), DBH (0.52), and AGB (0.52), using Pearson’s correlation coefficients. Using a linear regression CHM was used to predict the height (R 2 = 0.73, height = 1.9436 + 0.8471*CHM), and AGB (R 2 = 0.43, ln(AGB) = 0.4904 + 0.1335*CHM) for individual trees. Incorporating other remote sensing data, such as Sentinel-2 derived vegetation indices (vegetation index, enhanced vegetation index and leaf area index) did not significantly improve the accuracy of the AGB estimates per tree. The outcome of this work confirms that LiDAR derived CHM is a good predictor of individual tree heights and a moderate predictor of AGB and could therefore be used as a proxy for biomass estimation for individual trees and over urban forests. • Drone-derived LiDAR data used to estimate tree heights and AGB in urban forest. • LiDAR derived canopy height model (CHM) is a good predictor of individual tree heights • CHM is a proxy for biomass estimation for individual trees and over urban forests. • Vegetation indices did not significantly improve the accuracy of AGB estimates per tree

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.227 · 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