MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412865416 · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113950

Aboveground Carbon Estimation in a Mangrove Ecosystem Using UAV-Based Remote Sensing and Machine Learning

2025· article· en· W4412865416 on OpenAlexafffund
Menglei Duan, Arturo Sánchez‐Azofeifa, Muhammad Abdulmajeed, David P. Turner, Kathleen Buckingham, Agatha Odari, Josphat Mtwana, Solomon Kipkoech, Neda K. Kasraee

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Indicators · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of TechnologyUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsMangroveMangrove ecosystemEcosystemEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingEstimationEcologyCarbon fibersComputer scienceGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mangroves are an important part of coastal blue carbon ecosystems, efficiently absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). Accurate quantification of mangrove carbon stocks aids climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. This study uses UAV-based remote sensing datasets to model Aboveground Carbon (AGC) in a juvenile mangrove ecosystem in Kenya, characterized by relatively open canopies. We developed an Ensemble regression model to estimate AGC, achieving a Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 1.79 kg when validated against ground truth data. Instead of plot-level metrics, which lack detailed spatial information about individual trees or areas smaller than the mapping unit, our model was developed based on tree-level metrics, using data on hundreds of trees from fewer forest inventory plots. This methodology enabled the extraction of detailed spatial information on AGC at the tree level. We also explored the potential of two different UAV-based remote sensing data (LiDAR point cloud data vs point cloud data generated from high overlap images) for estimating mangrove AGC. Furthermore, a pixel-level comparison of difference values (“AGC LiDAR – AGC High overlap ”) was conducted to quantify and evaluate the estimated AGC differences (R 2 = 0.71, RMSE = 0.97 kg/m 2 ). The results suggest that both LiDAR data and superior high overlap images have the potential to accurately predict mangrove biomass/carbon stocks, although LiDAR outperforms high overlap images due to its involvement in unique intensity metrics. The tree-level-based modeling methodology presented in this work offers a different insight for biomass or carbon stock modeling.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological IndicatorsSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207