An AI-based and coding-free protocol for forests Leaf Area Index (LAI) calculation
Ma, T.; Tang, M.; Liu, F.; Duah-Gyamfi, A.; Adu-Bredu, S.; Naive, M. A. K.; Oliveras Menor, I.; Moore, S.; Zhang, Z.; Malhi, Y.; Dahlsjo, C. A. L.; Zhang-Zheng, H.
Show abstract
Measurements of Leaf Area Index (LAI) have become an important component in modern forest ecology and conservation. Detecting subtle annual, seasonal, and spatial variations in tropical forests is particularly challenging, due to their complex structure and dynamic environmental conditions. Traditional processing of hemispherical photographs involves time-consuming pixel classification that is prone to subjective systematic errors, impeding comparison across months, years, and study sites. While automated methods that ensure consistency are available, they typically require coding expertise, which limits their wider adoption among non-specialists. We present a streamlined protocol that enables automatic, coding-free calculation of LAI by integrating two free software packages: ilastik, for AI-based pixel classification, and CAN-EYE, for LAI estimation. To evaluate its performance, we compared the seasonal and spatial variations in LAI derived from our protocol with those obtained using traditional pixel classification. Four sub-types of tropical forests were used to test the protocols in different scenarios, including moist evergreen forest, semi-deciduous forest, dry forests, and woody savanna. We found that traditional pixel classification (which requires manual threshold adjustments by operators) was highly influenced by subjective bias, with results varying depending on the time invested in pixel classification. In contrast, the fully automated workflow (our protocol: ilastik pixel classification + CAN-EYE calculation) eliminates subjective bias, enabling consistent cross-years and cross-operator comparisons. Careful validation using field photos and local forest phenology showed that the automated approach captured seasonal LAI variations more accurately than traditional processing, aligning more closely with observed phenological patterns. However, analyses of spatial variation found no significant difference between protocols, as both captured site-to-site differences with comparable accuracy. Additionally, ilastik can classify pixels into non-binary categories (sky, leaves, and twigs), providing an added layer of detail that is useful for delineating savanna tree phenology. We present an automated, user friendly, and widely applicable protocol that enhances the accuracy, consistency, and reproducibility of LAI measurements, offering a robust tool for advancing tropical forest monitoring and research.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Crop loss identification at field parcel scale using satellite remote sensing and machine learning 94%
- Beyond Traditional Methods: Innovative Integration of LISS IV and Sentinel 2A Imagery for Unparalleled Insight into Himalayan Ibex Habitat Suitability 94%
- Remote sensing of bird communities in the Peruvian Amazon: evaluating Landsat predictors for biodiversity monitoring. 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Leveraging remote sensing to distinguish closely related beech species in assisted gene flow scenarios 96%
- High-resolution mapping of forest vulnerability to wind for disturbance-aware forestry and climate change adaptation 95%
- Assessing the effects of thinning on stem growth allocation of individual Scots pine trees 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Continuous land cover change detection in a critically endangered shrubland ecosystem using neural networks 95%
- Locating and dating land cover change events in the Renosterveld, a Critically Endangered shrubland ecosystem 94%
- Classification of daily crop phenology in PhenoCams using deep learning and hidden markov models 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.