Forest Volume Estimation in Secondary Forests of the Southern Daxing’anling Mountains Using Multi-Source Remote Sensing and Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest volume is an important information for assessing the economic value and carbon sequestration capacity of forest resources and serves as a key indicator for energy flow and biodiversity. Although remote sensing technology is applied to estimate volume, optical remote sensing data have limitations in capturing forest vertical height information and may suffer from reflectance saturation. While LiDAR data can provide more detailed vertical structural information, they come with high processing costs and limited observation range. Therefore, improving the accuracy of volume estimation through multi-source data fusion has become a crucial challenge and research focus in the field of forest remote sensing. In this study, we integrated Sentinel-2 multispectral data, Resource-3 stereoscopic imagery, UAV-based LiDAR data, and field survey data to quantitatively estimate the forest volume in Saihanwula Nature Reserve, located in Inner Mongolia, China, on the southern part of Daxing’anling Mountains. The study evaluated the performance of multi-source remote sensing features by using recursive feature elimination (RFE) to select the most relevant factors and applied four machine learning models—multiple linear regression (MLR), k-nearest neighbors (kNN), random forest (RF), and gradient boosting regression tree (GBRT)—to develop volume estimation models. The evaluation metrics include the coefficient of determination (R2), root mean square error (RMSE), and relative root mean square error (rRMSE). The results show that (1) forest Canopy Height Model (CHM) data were strongly correlated with forest volume, helping to alleviate the reflectance saturation issues inherent in spectral texture data. The fusion of CHM and spectral data resulted in an improved volume estimation model with R2 = 0.75 and RMSE = 8.16 m3/hm2, highlighting the importance of integrating multi-source canopy height information for more accurate volume estimation. (2) Volume estimation accuracy varied across different tree species. For Betula platyphylla, we obtained R2 = 0.71 and RMSE = 6.96 m3/hm2; for Quercus mongolica, R2 = 0.74 and RMSE = 6.90 m3/hm2; and for Populus davidiana, R2 = 0.51 and RMSE = 9.29 m3/hm2. The total forest volume in the Saihanwula Reserve ranges from 50 to 110 m3/hm2. (3) Among the four machine learning models, GBRT consistently outperformed others in all evaluation metrics, achieving the highest R2 of 0.86, lowest RMSE of 9.69 m3/hm2, and lowest rRMSE of 24.57%, suggesting its potential for forest biomass estimation. In conclusion, accurate estimation of forest volume is critical for evaluating forest management practices and timber resources. While this integrated approach shows promise, its operational application requires further external validation and uncertainty analysis to support policy-relevant decisions. The integration of multi-source remote sensing data provides valuable support for forest resource accounting, economic value assessment, and monitoring dynamic changes in forest ecosystems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".