# Stem Taper Estimation Using Artificial Neural Networks for Nothofagus Trees in Natural Forest

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Study Area

^{2}were randomly established. In each plot, the diameter at breast height of all trees (D ≥ 10 cm) was measured, ruling out trees of other species. The three plots were processed to generate an average stand table, which was used as the basis for the selection of the sample trees in each stand. In each mixed stand, five trees of each species (N. obliqua, N. alpina, N. dombeyi) were selected. In monospecific stands, 10 trees of each species present were selected. All trees were destructively sampled.

_{i}is the volume without bark of each section of the stem (m

^{3}); L is the length of the stem section (m); A

_{1}and A

_{2}are the areas at the base and up of each stem section without bark (m

^{2}), respectively. The total volume of each tree was obtained from the sum of the volumes of each stem section from a height of 0.3 m to the top of the tree.

#### 2.2. Taper Models

_{i}is the diameter without bark measured in variable height h

_{i}, D is the diameter and H is the total height of the tree. Where $H{r}_{i}=\frac{{h}_{i}}{H}$, ${X}_{i}=\frac{H-{h}_{i}}{H-1.3}$, ${Z}_{i}=\frac{{\left(1-H{r}_{i}\right)}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{{\left(1-\frac{1.3}{H}\right)}^{\frac{1}{3}}}$, and ${\beta}_{1,2,\dots 8}$ are the parameters to be estimated from the models.

#### 2.3. Modeling with Artificial Neural Networks

#### 2.4. Artificial Neural Networks Structure

#### 2.5. Performance Metrics and Cross-Validation

#### 2.6. Generation of Estimated Volume

#### 2.7. Proof of Methods Performance

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Stem Diameter Modeling

#### 3.2. Modeling for the Accumulated Volume

^{3}in the accumulated volume at the individual tree level. The bias in the testing phase was −0.0001, with this value being the one that also produced less bias in relation to the other two configurations. The resulting configuration used three hidden layers of 40, 20 and 10 neurons in each of them, using the ReLU activation function. This configuration generated 1441 weight parameters, originating from 2000 epoch training cycles. Yet, as in the ANN trained for the stem profile, the stabilization of the cost function and the MSE was achieved before 500 cycles (Figure 3). The ANN training curves show that the cost function and MSE stabilize after 500 cycles, and after that, the ANN does not show significant improvements in the testing phase. In this estimation phase, the ANN shows consistent estimates in relation to the measured volumes and the normal distribution of errors (Figure 4).

#### 3.3. Individual Volume Estimation

#### 3.4. Proof of Methods Performance

## 4. Discussion

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

^{o}025/2012 “Desarrollo de herramientas de cuantificación biométrica generalizadas para el manejo y uso integral sustentable de renovales de Nothofagus spp.”. The authors would like to acknowledge the technical support of Jorge Cancino and Carlos Valenzuela.

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A

- # Setting callbacks and creating routes
- name <- "model_name"
- root0 <- "directory_path/Callbacks_Weights/"
- dir.create(paste0(root0,name,"/"), showWarnings = FALSE)
- root <- file.path(paste0(root0,name),"weights.{epoch:02d}-{val_loss:.2f}.hdf5")
- # Creating Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
- model <- keras_model_sequential()
- # Create architecture for diameter estimates using eight predictor variables
- model %>% layer_dense(units = 30, activation = "relu", input_shape = c(8)) %>%
- layer_dense(units = 25, activation = "relu", input_shape = c(8)) %>%
- layer_dropout(0.1) %>%
- layer_dense(units = 1)
- # Compile ANN
- modelo %>% compile(loss='mse',
- optimizer = 'adam',
- metrics = 'mae')
- # Create Callback
- cp_callback <- callback_model_checkpoint(filepath = root,
- save_best_only = TRUE,
- save_weights_only = TRUE,
- save_freq = "epoch",
- monitor = "val_loss")
- # Training ANN
- history <- model %>% fit(data_train,
- y_train,
- epochs=2000,
- batch_size=32,
- validation_split=0.2,
- callbacks=list(cp_callback))
- # Summary of ANN architecture
- summary(model)
- # Evaluation performance ANN using testing data
- model %>% evaluate(data_test, y_test)
- # Generating performance indices
- loss <- history[["metrics"]][["loss"]]
- val_loss <- history[["metrics"]][["val_loss"]]
- mae <- history[["metrics"]][["mae"]]
- val_mae <- history[["metrics"]][["val_mae"]]
- epoch <- seq(1:length(loss))
- # Setting a dataframe with performance indices
- data_epochs <- as.data.frame(cbind(epoch,loss,val_loss,mae,val_mae))
- # Writting a csv file with performance índices
- write.csv(data_epochs, paste0("directory_path/Models_save/epochs_my_",name,".csv"),
- row.names = FALSE)
- # Save ANN architecture
- model %>% save_model_hdf5(paste0("directory_path/Models_save/my_",name,".h5"))
- # Load ANN architecture and best weights
- best_file <- "weights.1860-1.95.hdf5"
- root2 <- paste0("directory_path/Callbacks_Weights/",name,"/",best_file)
- model <- keras_model_sequential()
- model %>% layer_dense(units = 30, activation = "relu", input_shape = c(8)) %>%
- layer_dense(units = 25, activation = "relu", input_shape = c(8)) %>%
- layer_dense(units = 1)
- model_load <- load_model_weights_hdf5(object=model, filepath = root2)
- # Predictions and performance índices in new dataset testing
- y_est <- model_load %>% predict(data_test_new)
- error <- (y_obs - y_est)
- sesgo <- mean(error)
- RMSE_test <- sqrt(mean(error^2))
- RMSE_test_p <- (RMSE_test/mean(y_test))*100

## References

- Schikowski, A.B.; Corte, A.P.D.; Ruza, M.S.; Sanquetta, C.R.; Montano, R. Modeling of stem form and volume through machine learning. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências
**2018**, 90, 3389–3401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Kozak, A. A variable-exponent taper equation. Can. J. For. Res.
**1988**, 18, 1363–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Socha, J.; Netzel, P.; Cywicka, D. Stem taper approximation by artificial neural network and a regression set models. Forests
**2020**, 11, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Amarioarei, A.; Paun, M.; Strimbu, B. Development of nonlinear parsimonious forest models using efficient expansion of the taylor series: Applications to site productivity and taper. Forests
**2020**, 11, 458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Kozak, A. My last words on taper equations. For. Chron.
**2004**, 80, 507–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Liu, Y.; Yue, C.; Wei, X.; Blanco, J.A.; Trancoso, R. Tree profile equations are significantly improved when adding tree age and stocking degree: An example for Larix gmelinii in the Greater Khingan Mountains of Inner Mongolia, northeast China. Eur. J. For. Res.
**2020**, 139, 443–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jiang, L.; Brooks, J.R. Taper, volume, and weight equations for Red Pine in West Virginia. North. J. Appl. For.
**2008**, 25, 151–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Valenzuela, C.; Acuña, E.; Ortega, A.; Quiñonez-Barraza, G.; Corral-Rivas, J.; Cancino, J. Variable-top stem biomass equations at tree-level generated by a simultaneous density-integral system for second growth forests of roble, raulí, and coigüe in Chile. J. For. Res.
**2019**, 30, 993–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - LeCun, Y.; Bengio, Y.; Hinton, G. Deep learning. Nature
**2015**, 521, 436–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Eskandari, S.; Reza Jaafari, M.; Oliva, P.; Ghorbanzadeh, O.; Blaschke, T. Mapping land cover and tree canopy cover in Zagros Forests of Iran: Application of Sentinel-2, Google Earth, and field data. Remote Sens.
**2020**, 12, 1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Garg, R.; Aggarwal, H.; Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R. Extracting knowledge from big data for sustainability: A comparison of machine learning techniques. Sustainability
**2019**, 11, 6669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Rex, F.E.; Silva, C.A.; Dalla Corte, A.P.; Klauberg, C.; Mohan, M.; Cardil, A.; Silva, V.S.d.; Almeida, D.R.A.d.; Garcia, M.; Broadbent, E.N.; et al. Comparison of statistical modelling approaches for estimating tropical forest aboveground biomass stock and reporting their changes in low-intensity logging areas using multi-temporal LiDAR data. Remote Sens.
**2020**, 12, 1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhou, R.; Wu, D.; Zhou, R.; Fang, L.; Zheng, X.; Lou, X. Estimation of DBH at forest stand level based on multi-parameters and generalized regression neural network. Forests
**2019**, 10, 778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Ercanlı, İ. Innovative deep learning artificial intelligence applications for predicting relationships between individual tree height and diameter at breast height. For. Ecosyst.
**2020**, 7, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Sylvain, J.-D.; Drolet, G.; Brown, N. Mapping dead forest cover using a deep convolutional neural network and digital aerial photography. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens.
**2019**, 156, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Verly Lopes, D.J.; Burgreen, G.W.; Entsminger, E.D. North American hardwoods identification using machine-learning. Forests
**2020**, 11, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Bulanadi, J.; Tumibay, G.; Quioc, M.A. Spatiotemporal Data Analysis and Forecasting Model for Forestland Rehabilitation. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Res.
**2019**, 3, 229–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Özçelik, R.; Diamantopoulou, M.J.; Trincado, G. Evaluation of potential modeling approaches for Scots pine stem diameter prediction in north-eastern Turkey. Comput. Electron. Agric.
**2019**, 162, 773–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shen, J.; Hu, Z.; Sharma, R.P.; Wang, G.; Meng, X.; Wang, M.; Wang, Q.; Fu, L. Modeling height–diameter relationship for poplar plantations using combined-optimization multiple hidden layer back propagation neural network. Forests
**2020**, 11, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Diamantopoulou, M.J.; Milios, E. Modelling total volume of dominant pine trees in reforestations via multivariate analysis and artificial neural network models. Biosyst. Eng.
**2010**, 105, 306–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Martins Silva, J.P.; Marques da Silva, M.L.; Ferreira da Silva, E.; Fernandes da Silva, G.; Ribeiro de Mendonca, A.; Cabacinha, C.D.; Araujo, E.F.; Santos, J.S.; Vieira, G.C.; Felix de Almeida, M.N.; et al. Computational techniques applied to volume and biomass estimation of trees in Brazilian savanna. J. Environ. Manag.
**2019**, 249, 109368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Castaño-Santamaría, J.; Crecente-Campo, F.; Fernández-Martínez, J.L.; Barrio-Anta, M.; Obeso, J.R. Tree height prediction approaches for uneven-aged beech forests in northwestern Spain. For. Ecol. Manag.
**2013**, 307, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Scrinzi, G.; Marzullo, L.; Galvagni, D. Development of a neural network model to update forest distribution data for managed alpine stands. Ecol. Model.
**2007**, 206, 331–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mauro, F.; Frank, B.; Monleon, V.J.; Temesgen, H.; Ford, K.R. Prediction of diameter distributions and tree-lists in southwestern Oregon using LiDAR and stand-level auxiliary information. Can. J. For. Res.
**2019**, 49, 775–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nunes, M.H.; Gorgens, E.B. Artificial intelligence procedures for tree taper estimation within a complex vegetation mosaic in Brazil. PLoS ONE
**2016**, 11, e0154738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Dolácio, C.J.F.; de Oliveira, T.W.G.; Oliveira, R.S.; Cerqueira, C.L.; Costa, L.R.R. Different approaches for modeling Swietenia macrophylla commercial volume in an Amazon agroforestry system. Agrofor. Syst.
**2019**, 94, 1011–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sakici, O.E.; Ozdemir, G. Stem taper estimations with artificial neural networks for mixed Oriental Beech and KazdaĞi Fir stands in Karabük Region, Turkey. Cerne
**2018**, 24, 439–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Şenyurt, M.; Ercanli, I. A comparison of artificial neural network models and regression models to predict tree volumes for crimean black pine trees in Cankiri forests. Sumar. List
**2019**, 143, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Donoso, P.; Donoso, C.; Sandoval, V. Proposición de zonas de crecimiento de renovales de roble (Nothofagus obliqua) y raulí (Nothofagus alpina) en su rango de distribución natural. Bosque
**1993**, 14, 37–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lara, A.; Donoso, C.; Donoso, P.; Nuñez, P.; Cavieres, A. Normas de manejo para raleo de renovales del tipo forestal roble–raulí–coigüe. In Silvicultura de los Bosques Nativos de Chile; Donoso, C., Lara, A., Eds.; Editorial Universitaria: Santiago, Chile, 1999; pp. 129–144. [Google Scholar]
- CONAF. Catastro de los Recursos Vegetacionales Nativos de Chile: Monitoreo de Cambios y Actualizaciones Periodo 1997–2011; Corporación Nacional Forestal (CONAF): Santiago, Chile, 2011; p. 29. [Google Scholar]
- Kershaw, J.A.; Ducey, M.J.; Beers, T.W.; Husch, B. Forest Mensuration, 5th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; p. 613. [Google Scholar]
- Bruce, D.; Curtis, R.O.; Vancoevering, C. Development of a system of taper and volume tables for Red Alder. For. Sci.
**1968**, 14, 339–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Demaerschalk, J.P. Converting volume equations to compatible taper equations. For. Sci.
**1972**, 18, 241–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Biging, G.S. A compatible volume- taper function for Alberta trees. For. Sci.
**1984**, 14, 339–350. [Google Scholar] - Lee, W.-K.; Seo, J.-H.; Son, Y.-M.; Lee, K.-H.; von Gadow, K. Modeling stem profiles for Pinus densiflora in Korea. For. Ecol. Manag.
**2003**, 172, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kingma, D.P.; Ba, J.L. Adam: A method for stochastic gradient descent. Proceedings of THE 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, Conference Track Proceedings, San Diego, CA, USA, 7–9 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Chollet, F. Keras. Available online: https://github.com/fchollet/keras (accessed on 29 October 2020).
- Qi, M.; Zhang, G.P. An investigation of model selection criteria for neural network time series forecasting. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
**2001**, 132, 666–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hjelm, B. Stem taper equations for poplars growing on farmland in Sweden. J. For. Res.
**2013**, 24, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, Y.; Trancoso, R.; Ma, Q.; Yue, C.; Wei, X.; Blanco, J.A. Incorporating climate effects in Larix gmelinii improves stem taper models in the Greater Khingan Mountains of Inner Mongolia, northeast China. For. Ecol. Manag.
**2020**, 464, 118065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yang, S.-I.; Burkhart, H.E. Robustness of parametric and nonparametric fitting procedures of tree-stem taper with alternative definitions for validation data. J. For.
**2020**, 118, 576–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Özçelik, R.; Diamantopoulou, M.J.; Brooks, J.R.; Wiant, H.V., Jr. Estimating tree bole volume using artificial neural network models for four species in Turkey. J. Environ. Manag.
**2010**, 91, 742–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Max, T.A.; Burkhart, H.E. Segmented polynomial regression applied to taper equations. For. Sci.
**1976**, 22, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Leite, H.G.; da Silva, M.L.M.; Binoti, D.H.B.; Fardin, L.; Takizawa, F.H. Estimation of inside-bark diameter and heartwood diameter for Tectona grandis Linn. trees using artificial neural networks. Eur. J. For. Res.
**2011**, 130, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Özçelik, R.; Diamantopoulou, M.J.; Brooks, J.R. The use of tree crown variables in over-bark diameter and volume prediction models. iForest
**2014**, 7, 132–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sanquetta, C.R.; Piva, L.R.O.; Wojciechowski, J.; Corte, A.P.D.; Schikowski, A.B. Volume estimation of Cryptomeria japonica logs in southern Brazil using artificial intelligence models. South. For.
**2017**, 80, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - da Silva, E.M.; Maia, R.D.; Cabacinha, C.D. Bee-inspired RBF network for volume estimation of individual trees. Comput. Electron. Agric.
**2018**, 152, 401–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**ANN training for the diameter without bark. Black denotes the training dataset and blue the validation dataset.

**Figure 2.**Estimation of the diameter without bark in the testing dataset using the general ANN and the taper function by Kozak [5]. For the ANN, the prediction that is made jointly for the species is shown, while the taper models were adjusted independently for each species.

**Figure 3.**ANN training for accumulated volume without bark. Black denotes the training dataset and blue the validation dataset.

**Figure 4.**Estimation of the volume without bark accumulated in the base-up direction in the first k-fold of the dataset testing, using the ANN structure selected with the lowest RMSE.

**Figure 5.**Proof for the estimation of the diameter without bark at different heights for the three selected trees of each species (dots). The blue line represents the estimate generated by Kozak’s (2004) taper function and the red line represents the estimate generated by the one-phase ANN.

**Figure 6.**Proof for the prediction of the accumulated volume at different heights for the three selected trees of each species (dots) in the two ANN training phases. The black line represents the volume estimate generated by Kozak’s (2004) taper function, the blue line represents the volume estimate generated by the one-phase ANN (diameter) and the red line represents the volume estimate generated by the two-phase ANN (diameter-volume).

Species | n | Diameter (cm) | Height (m) | Volume (m^{3} tree^{−1}) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Av | SD | Min | Max | Av | SD | Min | Max | Av | SD | Min | Max | ||

N. obliqua | 635 | 24.3 | 9.4 | 4.9 | 54.7 | 20.5 | 5.6 | 6.0 | 36.8 | 0.512 | 0.444 | 0.006 | 3.138 |

N. alpina | 459 | 24.5 | 8.9 | 4.6 | 52.0 | 21.7 | 4.6 | 7.0 | 33.4 | 0.529 | 0.383 | 0.007 | 2.368 |

N. dombeyi | 286 | 22.7 | 10.0 | 4.9 | 53.2 | 19.7 | 6.0 | 5.6 | 33.7 | 0.481 | 0.500 | 0.007 | 2.839 |

Model | Model Structure | Cite |
---|---|---|

1 | ${d}_{i}={\left[{D}^{2}({\beta}_{1}{X}_{i}^{1.5}+{\beta}_{2}{X}_{i}^{3}+{\beta}_{3}{X}_{i}^{32}\right]}^{0.5}$ | Bruce et al. [33] |

2 | ${d}_{i}={\left[{D}^{2}({\beta}_{1}{X}_{i}^{1.5}+{\beta}_{2}{X}_{i}^{32}+{\beta}_{3}{X}_{i}^{40}\right]}^{0.5}$ | Bruce et al. [33] |

3 | ${d}_{i}={D}^{2}{\left[{10}^{2{\beta}_{1}}{D}^{2{\beta}_{2}-2}{H}^{2{\beta}_{3}}{\left(H-{h}_{i}\right)}^{2{\beta}_{4}}\right]}^{0.5}$ | Demaerschalk [34] |

4 | ${d}_{i}=D\left\{{\beta}_{0}+{\beta}_{1}\mathrm{ln}\left[1-H{r}_{i}^{\frac{1}{3}}\left(1-{e}^{-\frac{{\beta}_{1}}{{\beta}_{2}}}\right)\right]\right\}$ | Biging [35] |

5 | ${d}_{i}={\beta}_{1}{D}^{{\beta}_{2}}{\left(1-Hr\right)}^{{\beta}_{3}H{r}_{i}+{\beta}_{4}H{r}_{i}+{\beta}_{5}}$ | Lee et al. [36] |

6 | ${d}_{i}={\beta}_{1}{D}^{{\beta}_{2}}+{\beta}_{3}^{D}{Z}_{i}^{\lambda}$ $\begin{array}{c}\lambda ={\beta}_{4}H{r}_{i}^{2}+{\beta}_{5}\mathrm{ln}\left(H{r}_{i}+0.001\right)+{\beta}_{6}H{r}_{i}^{1/2}+{\beta}_{7}\mathrm{exp}\left(H{r}_{i}\right)\\ \hfill +{\beta}_{8}\left(D/H\right)\hfill \end{array}$ | Kozak [5] |

**Table 3.**Estimated parameters and precision fit results obtained in the traditional taper functions for the diameter without bark in the three species evaluated using the testing dataset.

Species | Model | b1 | b2 | b3 | b4 | b5 | b6 | b7 | b8 | Bias (cm) | AIC | BIC | RMSE | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

(cm) | (%) | |||||||||||||

N. obliqua | 1 | 0.9793 * | −0.0079 * | 0.0013 * | 0.082 | 6.51 | 1.61 | 1.66 | 10.8 | |||||

2 | 0.9541 * | 0.0157 * | −0.0035 * | 0.179 | 6.49 | 1.59 | 1.64 | 10.7 | ||||||

3 | 0.1240 * | 0.9806 * | −0.7845 * | 0.7204 * | 0.029 | 8.50 | 1.89 | 1.65 | 10.7 | |||||

4 | 1.1601 * | 0.3885 * | 0.119 | 4.48 | 1.18 | 1.62 | 10.5 | |||||||

5 | 1.2676 * | 0.9473 * | 1.3716 * | −1.8155 * | 1.3268 * | 0.036 | 10.48 | 2.09 | 1.61 | 10.4 | ||||

6 | 0.9850 * | 0.9917 * | 1.0001 * | 0.4059 * | −0.1256 * | 0.5402 * | −0.1274 * | 0.0208 * | 0.018 | 16.43 | 2.51 | 1.54 | 10.0 | |

N. alpina | 1 | 1.0015 * | −0.0195 * | 0.0015 ns | 0.025 | 6.47 | 1.57 | 1.60 | 10.5 | |||||

2 | 0.9634 * | 0.0260 * | −0.0078 * | 0.141 | 6.45 | 1.55 | 1.57 | 10.2 | ||||||

3 | 0.1072 * | 0.9497 * | −0.7479 * | 0.7318 * | 0.023 | 8.46 | 1.85 | 1.59 | 10.4 | |||||

4 | 1.1710 * | 0.3985 * | 0.107 | 4.43 | 1.12 | 1.53 | 10.0 | |||||||

5 | 1.3108 * | 0.9414 * | 1.9184 * | −2.4435 * | 1.5119 * | 0.032 | 10.41 | 2.01 | 1.50 | 9.8 | ||||

6 | 0.8925 * | 1.0267 * | 0.9994 * | 1.0690 * | −0.2439 * | 1.3983 * | −0.7274 * | 0.1219 * | 0.002 | 16.32 | 2.40 | 1.38 | 9.0 | |

N. dombeyi | 1 | 0.9891 * | 0.0015 * | 0.0000 ns | −0.044 | 6.41 | 1.51 | 1.51 | 10.5 | |||||

2 | 0.9821 * | 0.0047 * | −0.0010 * | −0.009 | 6.41 | 1.50 | 1.50 | 10.5 | ||||||

3 | 0.0957 * | 0.9604 * | −0.7890 * | 0.7760 * | 0.017 | 8.40 | 1.79 | 1.49 | 10.4 | |||||

4 | 1.1989 * | 0.4342 * | 0.121 | 4.42 | 1.11 | 1.52 | 10.6 | |||||||

5 | 1.2683 * | 0.9504 * | 1.5661 * | −1.8257 * | 1.2954 * | 0.027 | 10.36 | 1.97 | 1.43 | 10.0 | ||||

6 | 0.8236 * | 1.0669 * | 0.9982 * | 0.5046 * | −0.0820 * | 0.3046 * | −0.0852 * | 0.1123 * | 0.008 | 16.30 | 2.38 | 1.35 | 9.5 |

**Table 4.**Hyper-parameters obtained from the best ANN structures for the diameter without bark and the accumulated volume in the training and testing phase, 2000 epochs and activation function ReLU.

Variable | Optimizer | Batch Size | Layer | Units | n pars. | Bias Test | RMSE Train | AIC | BIC | RMSE Test | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

(cm) | (%) | (cm) | (%) | |||||||||

Dsc | Adam | 32 | 2 | 30–25 | 1071 | −0.0812 | 1.1503 | 7.5 | 16.14 | 2.22 | 1.1643 | 7.7 |

Adam | 32 | 2 | 30–20 | 911 | 0.0324 | 1.2508 | 8.1 | 16.22 | 2.30 | 1.2596 | 8.3 | |

Adam | 32 | 3 | 30–25–10 | 1316 | 0.1282 | 1.2037 | 7.8 | 16.19 | 2.26 | 1.2963 | 8.5 | |

(m^{3}) | (%) | (m^{3}) | (%) | |||||||||

Volume | Adam | 32 | 3 | 40–20–10 | 1441 | −0.0001 | 0.0266 | 8.2 | 14.37 | −1.43 | 0.0296 | 9.0 |

Adam | 32 | 3 | 40–30–20 | 2271 | 0.0008 | 0.0269 | 8.3 | 14.38 | −1.42 | 0.0318 | 9.7 | |

Adam | 32 | 2 | 30–25 | 1101 | 0.0012 | 0.0284 | 8.8 | 14.44 | −1.36 | 0.0327 | 10.1 |

**Table 5.**Summary of total tree volume estimation in the test basis using Kozak’s taper functions, one-phase ANN and two-phase ANN of prediction. The best ranked ANNs according to the architecture shown in Table 4 were used for the calculation.

Species | Model | RMSE | |
---|---|---|---|

(m^{3} tree^{−1}) | (%) | ||

N. obliqua | Kozak | 0.0378 | 11.6 |

One-phase ANN | 0.0336 | 10.2 | |

Two-phase ANN | 0.0332 | 9.8 | |

N. alpina | Kozak | 0.0266 | 9.9 |

One-phase ANN | 0.0245 | 8.9 | |

Two-phase ANN | 0.0236 | 8.3 | |

N. dombeyi | Kozak | 0.0301 | 10.3 |

One-phase ANN | 0.0294 | 9.3 | |

Two-phase ANN | 0.0278 | 8.6 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Sandoval, S.; Acuña, E.
Stem Taper Estimation Using Artificial Neural Networks for Nothofagus Trees in Natural Forest. *Forests* **2022**, *13*, 2143.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f13122143

**AMA Style**

Sandoval S, Acuña E.
Stem Taper Estimation Using Artificial Neural Networks for Nothofagus Trees in Natural Forest. *Forests*. 2022; 13(12):2143.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f13122143

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Sandoval, Simón, and Eduardo Acuña.
2022. "Stem Taper Estimation Using Artificial Neural Networks for Nothofagus Trees in Natural Forest" *Forests* 13, no. 12: 2143.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f13122143