=Paper= {{Paper |id=Vol-3930/paper15 |storemode=property |title=Machine learning modeling exploration for under-bark tree bole volume estimation |pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3930/paper15.pdf |volume=Vol-3930 |authors=Maria J. Diamantopoulou |dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/haicta/Diamantopoulou24 }} ==Machine learning modeling exploration for under-bark tree bole volume estimation== https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3930/paper15.pdf

Machine learning modeling exploration for under-bark
tree bole volume estimation⋆
Maria J. Diamantopoulou1, ∗,†
1
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, University Campus 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece

Abstract
This paper investigates the potential of utilizing both probabilistic and ensemble supervised machine
learning modeling strategies to accurately estimate under-bark tree bole volume. For this purpose, primary
measurement data from pine trees (Pinus brutia Ten.) in the Seich–Sou suburban forest of Thessaloniki,
Greece, were used. The described analysis can offer a strong foundation for understanding the performance
of both non-parametric modeling approaches. Specifically, the study employed the probabilistic Gaussian
Process Regression (GPR) modeling methodology with an integrated radial basis function (RBF) kernel.
Furthermore, based on its well-known ability to predict values for continuous variables, the ensemble
learning technique chosen for investigation was Random Forest regression (RFr), which integrates the
bootstrap aggregation methodology. A cross-validation procedure, combined with an exhaustive grid-
search methodology, was employed to determine the optimal hyperparameter combination for each
constructed model. Despite the challenge of identifying the optimal combination of numerous
hyperparameters unique to each modeling approach, the results demonstrated that both methodologies,
due to their flexibility, have significantly strong potential to provide reliable under-bark tree bole diameters
and volume estimations. This contributes to the sustainable management of forest resources and highlights
potential areas for further exploration and improvement.

Keywords
Gaussian Process Regression, Random Forest regression, pine trees 1

1. Introduction
Accurately predicting the total volume of trees is crucial for anticipating forest growth and
productivity. To estimate the bole volume by section, sophisticated formulas derived from the
methods developed by Huber, Smalian, and Newton are employed [1]. These techniques necessitate
multiple measurements of bole diameters at specific heights, which can be difficult to obtain from
standing trees.
Directly measuring the under-bark diameters of a tree bole several meters above the ground,
which is necessary for calculating the true under-bark bole volume, is unfeasible, as these
measurements can only be obtained from a felled tree. To avoid this destructive method, alternative
indirect approaches are being explored. Traditionally, regression analysis has been used to estimate
various forest attributes. However, the standard regression methodology encounters difficulties due
to the need to meet multiple assumptions [2].
Lately, the emerging field of artificial intelligence (AI), including machine learning (ML)
techniques have shown great potential providing accurate estimations and predictions of biological
attributes, even when dealing with noisy data and non-normal distributions, which are common in
primary forest measurements. Over the past two decades, there has been increasing interest in
utilizing machine learning in forestry [3, 4], driven by its advanced computational capabilities.

⋆ Short Paper Proceedings, Volume I of the 11th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in
Agriculture, Food & Environment (HAICTA 2024), Karlovasi, Samos, Greece, 17-20 October 2024.
∗
Corresponding author.
†
These authors contributed equally.
mdiamant@for.auth.gr
0000-0002-6003-1285
© 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

CEUR
Workshop
ceur-ws.org 90
ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
In line with this objective, the goal of this study is to accurately estimate and predict the under-
bark tree bole volume of pine trees using field measurements that are easily obtainable. To achieve
this, two distinct machine learning approaches were employed: the probabilistic Gaussian Process
Regression (GPR) method, known for its effectiveness in handling noisy continuous data, and the
Random Forest regression (RFr) technique, an ensemble learning algorithm that enhances overall
performance by combining the insights of multiple models.

2. Material and Methods
The ground-truth data was collected from measurements on pine trees (Pinus brutia) within the
Seich-Sou suburban forest of Thessaloniki, Greece. This forest, covering an area of 3,085.82 ha with
an elevation range between 563 meters and 100 meters [5]. Systematic sampling was employed to
ensure that all different site classes were represented. Tree measurements included over bark (doh)
and under bark diameters (duh) at one-meter height intervals starting from 0.3 meters above the
ground (do0.3, du0.3, do1.3, du1.3, …, do9.3, du9.3), as well as the total height (h) of the sampled trees. Upon
completion of the measurements, a sample size of n = 999 measurements was obtained.
The under bark bole volume (vubole) was calculated using the Smalian’s cross-sectional equation
[1]:

, ' '
𝜋 𝑑!& + 𝑑(!&)*) 𝜋
𝑣!"#$% = % & ∙ * . ∙ 𝑙0 + ∙ 𝑑' ∙ 𝑙 , (1)
4 2 12 !, ,
&-*
where 𝑑!& , i=1,…k are the under bark diameters of the lower and upper stem’s sections in m, l is the
length of each section in m, in this case equal to one meter, and lk is the length of the tree top, in m,
with lk < l=1.
The mean and the standard deviation (std) for the observed over and under bark tree diameters,
the tree total height and the under bark calculated volumes, are given in Table 1.

Table 1
Summary statistics of the observed tree bole diameters, in centimeters, total height, in meters and
under bark calculated volumes, in cubic meters
diam mean std diam mean std diam mean std diam mean std
do0.3 16.57 2.76 do3.3 8.88 2.79 do6.3 3.90 2.03 do9.3 1.99 1.55
du0.3 14.03 2.42 du4.3 8.41 2.59 du6.3 3.64 1.98 du9.3 1.82 1.47
do1.3 13.67 2.61 do4.3 7.01 2.45 do7.3 3.20 1.59 h 8.17 1.33
du1.3 12.16 2.36 du4.3 6.65 2.32 du7.3 2.95 1.56 vubole 0.05 0.02
do2.3 11.28 2.62 do5.3 5.13 2.23 do8.3 2.67 1.48
du2.3 10.32 2.40 du5.3 4.83 2.15 du8.3 2.44 1.44

2.1. Machine learning modeling approaches
Using a probabilistic supervised machine learning method like Gaussian process regression
(GPR) [6] for estimating under bark bole volume (vbole) brings significant benefits. This approach
incorporates prior knowledge through kernels and provides uncertainty measures for predictions.
Furthermore, this approach works well on small datasets, and it is more efficient in low dimensional
spaces, matching perfectly in the present case study. Generally, GPR is characterized by the mean
and covariance of the prior Gaussian process, along with the kernel that defines the relationship
between two observations. In this context, the kernel radial basis function (RBF) was employed [7]:
#
23! 1 3" 2
01 7
'
𝑘(𝑥& , 𝑥. ) = 𝜎/ ∙𝑒
'∙$6 #
, (2)

91
'
where 𝜎/ is the signal variance that controls the overall variance of functions drown from the
Gaussian process regression, ls is the length scale, determines how rapidly the correlation between
'
two points diminishes as the distance between them increases, 9𝑥& − 𝑥. 9 is the squared Euclidean
distance between the 𝑥& and 𝑥. .
'
In the equation (2), both the hyperparameter ls (length scale) and 𝜎/ (signal variance) are critical
to the quality of the resulting model and must be properly optimized. To achieve this, the tree
samples were randomly divided into a fitting data set, comprising 70% of the total data, and a testing
data set with the remaining 30%. Additionally, the fitting data sets were subjected to k-fold cross-
validation with k=5, ensuring the constructed model’s predictive ability is adequate. The same data
division approach was applied to the Random Forest regression model construction, as well.
The second non-parametric approach chosen was the RFr, selected in part for its ability to bypass
the assumptions inherent in standard regression modeling. This technique is recognized as a robust
non-parametric, supervised machine learning algorithm, originally proposed by [8]. The concept
behind this approach is that combining multiple models can better capture the true structure of the
data. RFr employs multiple individual models, called decision trees, which are combined into a single
model. The goal is to minimize both the variance and bias of the base model—the decision tree—as
much as possible within the system.
The successful training of the RFr model significantly depends on fine-tuning its
hyperparameters, particularly the number of decision trees (ndt), known as learners, and the
maximum depth (dmax) of these learners. These hyperparameters are crucial as they govern the
complexity of the RFr model. The RFr training utilized the bootstrap aggregation algorithm,
commonly known as bagging [8, 9].
Both the machine learning methodologies were implemented in the scikit-learn libraries [10] and
the Python programming language [11].

2.2. Evaluation criteria
The evaluation criteria crucial for assessing the suitability of the machine learning models used
in this study were as follows: a) root mean square error (RMSE), which calculates the square root of
the average squared differences between estimated/predicted and observed values; b) the coefficient
of determination (R²), which reflects the proportion of variance in the dependent variable that can
be explained by the independent variables; c) bias (BIAS), representing the mean difference between
estimated/predicted and observed values; and d) relative sum of square errors (RSSE), which is the
(%) ratio of the sum of squared errors (SSE) to the sum of the actual values of the under-bark bole
volume values. High model performance is indicated by low RMSE, BIAS, and RSSE values, coupled
with high R² values.

3. Results
Taking into account the difficulty faced in obtaining tree bole diameters in different heights, the
variables used as input variables to the under bark volume machine learning systems with output
variable the under bark bole volume (vubole) were the diameters located near the ground, therefore
easy to be measured, which were the (do0.3), (du0.3), (do1.3), (du1.3) and the total height (h) of the trees.
Moreover, these variables produce high correlation with the (vubole) values, contributing mostly to the
(vubole) values configuration.
Employing both machine learning Gaussian process regression modeling, and Random Forest for
regression modeling, the required hyperparameters were assessed using the grid-search
methodology [12], which resulted to the optimal hyperparameters’ values presenting in Table 2.

92
Table 2
Optimal hyperparameters values for both modeling approaches
Gaussian process regression (GPR) Random Forest for regression (RFr)
hyperparameters range optimal value hyperparameters range optimal value
' 0 - 1 0.05 ndt 1 - 300 10
𝜎/
ls 1-5 1.1 dmax 1 - 10 7

The evaluation criteria for the constructed models are presented in Table 3. As indicated in the
table, both models yield similar outcomes. However, the GPR model provides the most accurate and
reliable results for both the fitting and testing datasets.

Table 3
Evaluation criteria for both the constructed (GPR) and (RFr) modeling approaches, for both fitting
and testing data sets
data criteria
models set RMSE R² BIAS RSSE%
GPR fitting 0.0026 0.988 -0.00002 0.0141
testing 0.0032 0.977 -0.00009 0.0233
RFr fitting 0.0028 0.986 -0.00005 0.0163
testing 0.0038 0.974 -0.00136 0.0319

The performance of both constructed models was further assessed through the 45-degree line
plots.

4. Discussion
As a Bayesian regression technique, GPR modeling offers a probabilistic approach to inference,
enabling the prediction of not just the expected value of a target variable but also the uncertainty
associated with that prediction.

Figure 1: GPR model performance associated by its uncertainty

93
Offering a probabilistic prediction with a mean and variance provides a natural measure of
uncertainty in the predictions. Indicatively, the uncertainty in the under bark bole volume
predictions against the total tree height and the stump diameter (the tree bole diameter located at 0.3
m from ground) is shown in Figure 1. Similar plots under similar uncertainty could be produced for
all predictors. This evaluation is particularly useful in forestry, where risk assessment is essential for
the effective implementation of sustainable forest management.
The flexible structure of the Random Forest algorithm helps prevent the serious issue of
overfitting and enables the system to handle real-world data, which often includes challenges such
as high variance, outliers, and missing values. However, it’s important to note that the further a
predicted value is from the range of the fitting data, the less reliable that prediction will be.

Declaration on Generative AI
The author(s) have not employed any Generative AI tools.

References
[1] T. E. Avery, H. E. Burkhart, Forest Measurements, Mc Graw Hill, New York, NY, 2002.
[2] N. R. Draper, H. Smith, Applied regression analysis, 3rd ed., Wiley, New York NY, 1998.
doi:10.1002/9781118625590.
[3] M. J. Diamantopoulou, R. Özçelik, H. Yavuz, Tree-bark volume prediction via machine learning:
A case study based on black alder’s tree-bark production, Comput Electron Agric 151(2018): 431-
440. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2018.06.039.
[4] S. S. Ghosh, U. Khati, S. Kumar, A. Bhattacharya, M. Lavalle, Gaussian process regression-based
forest above ground biomass retrieval from simulated L-band NISAR data. Int J Appl Earth Obs
Geoinf 118(2023) 103252. doi: 10.1016/j.jag.2023.103252.
[5] FILOTIS - Database for the Natural Environment of Greece. URL:
https://filotis.itia.ntua.gr/biotopes/c/AT4011119/.
[6] CE. Rasmussen, CKI Williams, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning, The MIT Press,
Massachusetts, 2006.
[7] W. Chen, H. Wang, Q. H. Qin, Kernel Radial Basis Functions, in Computational Mechanics,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-75999-7_147.
[8] L. Breiman, Random Forests, Machine Learning 45(2001): 5–32. doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324.
[9] A. M. Prasad, L. R. Iverson, A. Liaw, Newer Classification and Regression Techniques: Bagging
and Random Forests for Ecological Prediction, Ecosystems 9(2006): 181-199. doi: 10.1007/s10021-
005-0054-1.
[10] F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P.
Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, et al., Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python, J Mach Learn Res
12(2011): 2825-2830. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490.
[11] Python Software Foundation: Python Documentation, 2022. ULR: http://www.python.org/.
[12] S. M. LaValle, M. S. Branicky, S. R. Lindemann, (2004). On the relationship between classical grid
search and probabilistic roadmaps, The International Journal of Robotics Research 23(2004):
673–692.