It seems like the West has a much higher proportion of conifers than deciduous forests east of the Great Plains do. Is this only because of generally higher levels of elevation and aridity?
Hi there, fellow redditors.
I wanted to ask if someone could point me to some good references which explain the differences between calculating aboveground biomass for deciduous and coniferous tree species.
I'm currently working on my MSc thesis and I want to use machine learning algorithms to relate ground measured biomass with features measured with a UAV (RGB values, height derived from the UAV point cloud, GLCM texture, etc.).
My first approach was to try and calculate biomass for both deciduous and coniferous, but they are statistically different in the features they present. When predicting biomass for coniferous, I get way better results than with deciduous trees.
TL;DR I need references that tell me if coniferous and deciduous biomass calculations are indeed better when done separately. If I'm being a bit more biased: if coniferous biomass models show better performance than deciduous models.
(Non shed in the winter, but #1 sure does look like a Larch, no?)
Hey gang, the grey is starting to get to me, and I'm looking for a nice hike in a coniferous/evergreen forest so that I can remember what it's like to see colour. I know the forests around here are primarily deciduous, so I'm willing to travel (while taking precautions to keep any germs to myself). Can anybody recommend a 2-3 mile trail within 90 minutes of Hamilton that'll scratch that itch?
|All Black WKL e8.5||$725 Shipped||Black badge, accent, and weight. Includes 2 O-ring gaskets. Currently built with PC plate, foam center, and lubed v2 Tangerines 62g. Comes with extra alu plate and pc badge. (Keycaps not include - can desolder for free)|
|GMK Camping R1 + Spacebars||$420/Trades||Excellent condition, no shine, no missing keys. ($380 without spacebars)|
Please comment here before PM
Thanks for looking, have a good one