An Efficient Biomass Estimation Model for Large-Scale Olea europaea L. by Integrating UAV-RGB and U2-Net with Allometric Equations
Highlights
- First successful biomass estimation in Olea europaea L. using integrated UAV-RGB and U2-Net.
- U2-Net combined with UAV-RGB images accurately extracted Olea europaea L. CA.
- This study developed a high-accuracy biomass estimation model for Olea europaea L., providing critical technical support for the cultivation management and carbon sequestration assessment of this economically important species.
- By innovatively integrating UAV imagery with the U2-Net deep learning method, efficient and automated canopy extraction and biomass monitoring were achieved, demonstrating significant potential for broad application.
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Overview of the Study Area
2.2. Data and Preprocessing
2.2.1. Ground Survey Data
2.2.2. UAV-RGB Image Acquisition and Processing
2.2.3. Sample Biomass Measurement
2.3. Construction of a CA Single-Parameter Whole-Plant Biomass Model for Olea europaea L.
2.3.1. W-D-H Allometric Growth Equation
2.3.2. Fitting Model Construction of CA-D and CA-H
2.4. Automatic Extraction Algorithm for Olea europaea L. CA Based on UAV-RGB Combined with U2-Net
2.4.1. U2-Net Network Structure and Loss Function
2.4.2. Olea europaea L. CA Extraction Method Using U2-Net
2.4.3. Methodology for Validation of CA Accuracy in Olea europaea L.
3. Results
3.1. Whole-Plant Biomass Modeling of Olea europaea L. Based on CA Single-Parameter
3.1.1. W-D-H Model
3.1.2. CA-D and CA-H Model
3.1.3. Single-Parameter Whole-Plant Biomass Modeling of Olea europaea L. in CA
3.2. Results of Automatic Identification of Olea europaea L. CA Based on the U2-Net Algorithm
3.3. Results of Biomass Estimation in the Sample Plots of the Study Area
3.3.1. Results of Olea europaea L. Biomass Estimation Based on Different Models
3.3.2. Comparative Analysis of Estimation Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Characteristics and Organ-Specific Variation in Allometric Equations for Olea europaea L. Biomass
4.2. Fitting Effect and Error Analysis of the CA Single-Parameter Olea europaea L. Biomass Model
4.3. Advantages of U2-Net Combined with UAV-RGB Imagery for Automated Extraction of a Large Range of Olea europaea L. CA
4.4. Model Generalizability and Uncertainty Analysis
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sarwar, G.; Anwar, T.; Chaudhary, M.S.; Jamil, M.; Kamal, A.; Mustafa, A.E.-Z.M.A.; Al-Ghamdi, A.A.; Ullah, F.; Zaman, W. Study of Comparative Morphology of Eight Cultivated Genotypes of Olea europaea L. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mansour, H.M.M.; Zeitoun, A.A.; Abd-Rabou, H.S.; El Enshasy, H.A.; Dailin, D.J.; Zeitoun, M.A.A.; El-Sohaimy, S.A. Antioxidant and Anti-Diabetic Properties of Olive (Olea europaea) Leaf Extracts: In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, L. Whole Industrial Chain Development Ideas of Olea europaea in Yunnan Province. Agric. Technol. Equip. 2024, 413, 17–19. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, H. Current Situation and Development Countermeasures of Yunnan Olive Industry. For. Sci. Technol. 2024, 02, 40–43. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, W.; Zhao, L.; Li, Y.; Shi, J.; Yan, M.; Ji, Y. Forest Above-Ground Biomass Inversion Using Optical and SAR Images Based on a Multi-Step Feature Optimized Inversion Model. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turton, A.E.; Augustin, N.H.; Mitchard, E.T.A. Improving Estimates and Change Detection of Forest Above-Ground Biomass Using Statistical Methods. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 4911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, W.; Niu, C.; Hu, C.; Zhang, P.; Chen, Y. Constructing and Validating Estimation Models for Individual-Tree Aboveground Biomass of Salix Suchowensis in China. Forests 2024, 15, 1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, B.; Bu, W.; Zang, R. Improved Allometric Models to Estimate the Aboveground Biomass of Younger Secondary Tropical Forests. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2023, 41, e02359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, M.; Kou, W.; Lu, N.; Chen, Y.; Sun, Y.; Lai, H.; Chen, B.; Wang, J.; Li, C. Individual Tree AGB Estimation of Malania Oleifera Based on UAV-RGB Imagery and Mask R-CNN. Forests 2023, 14, 1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ou, G.; Xu, H. A Review on Forest Biomass Models. J. Southwest For. Univ. 2020, 40, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Demol, M.; Verbeeck, H.; Gielen, B.; Armston, J.; Burt, A.; Disney, M.; Duncanson, L.; Hackenberg, J.; Kükenbrink, D.; Lau, A.; et al. Estimating Forest Above-ground Biomass with Terrestrial Laser Scanning: Current Status and Future Directions. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2022, 13, 1628–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, X.-L.; Liu, Y.; Yu, X.-B. UAV-RGB-Image-Based Aboveground Biomass Equation for Planted Forest in Semi-Arid Inner Mongolia, China. Ecol. Inform. 2024, 81, 102574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Liu, T.; Batelaan, O.; Duan, L.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Li, M. Spatiotemporal Fusion of Multi-Source Remote Sensing Data for Estimating Aboveground Biomass of Grassland. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 146, 109892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qadeer, A.; Shakir, M.; Wang, L.; Talha, S.M. Evaluating Machine Learning Approaches for Aboveground Biomass Prediction in Fragmented High-Elevated Forests Using Multi-Sensor Satellite Data. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2024, 36, 101291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerini Filho, M.; Kuplich, T.M.; Quadros, F.L.F.D. Estimating Natural Grassland Biomass by Vegetation Indices Using Sentinel 2 Remote Sensing Data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2020, 41, 2861–2876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, S.; Dashpurev, B.; Phan, T.N.; Dorj, M.; Jäschke, Y.; Lehnert, L. Above-ground Biomass Retrieval with Multi-source Data: Prediction and Applicability Analysis in E Astern M Ongolia. Land Degrad. Dev. 2024, 35, 2982–2992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, P.; Zhang, W.; Li, Y.; Shi, J.; Wang, Z. Forest Total and Component Above-Ground Biomass (AGB) Estimation through C- and L-Band Polarimetric SAR Data. Forests 2022, 13, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuthammachot, N.; Askar, A.; Stratoulias, D.; Wicaksono, P. Combined Use of Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 Data for Improving above-Ground Biomass Estimation. Geocarto Int. 2022, 37, 366–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zurqani, H.A. A Multi-Source Approach Combining GEDI LiDAR, Satellite Data, and Machine Learning Algorithms for Estimating Forest Aboveground Biomass on Google Earth Engine Platform. Ecol. Inform. 2025, 86, 103052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hojo, A.; Avtar, R.; Nakaji, T.; Tadono, T.; Takagi, K. Modeling Forest Above-Ground Biomass Using Freely Available Satellite and Multisource Datasets. Ecol. Inform. 2023, 74, 101973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aasen, H.; Burkart, A.; Bolten, A.; Bareth, G. Generating 3D Hyperspectral Information with Lightweight UAV Snapshot Cameras for Vegetation Monitoring: From Camera Calibration to Quality Assurance. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2015, 108, 245–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reddy Maddikunta, P.K.; Hakak, S.; Alazab, M.; Bhattacharya, S.; Gadekallu, T.R.; Khan, W.Z.; Pham, Q.-V. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Smart Agriculture: Applications, Requirements, and Challenges. IEEE Sens. J. 2021, 21, 17608–17619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Zeng, T.; Li, L.; Fang, J.; Fu, W.; Gu, Y. Canopy Extraction of Mango Trees in Hilly and Plain Orchards Using UAV Images: Performance of Machine Learning vs Deep Learning. Ecol. Inform. 2025, 87, 103101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, Y.; Huang, H.; Zhou, G.; Zhang, Q.; Tao, J.; Zhang, Y.; Lin, J. Aboveground Mangrove Biomass Estimation in Beibu Gulf Using Machine Learning and UAV Remote Sensing. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 781, 146816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, P.; Qin, L.; Hao, M.; Zhao, W.; Luo, J.; Qiu, X.; Xu, L.; Xiong, Y.; Ran, Y.; Yan, C.; et al. An Improved Approach to Estimate Above-Ground Volume and Biomass of Desert Shrub Communities Based on UAV RGB Images. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 125, 107494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, Y.; Kou, W.; Lai, H.; Wang, J.; Wang, Q.; Xu, W.; Wang, H.; Lu, N. Improved Estimation of Aboveground Biomass in Rubber Plantations by Fusing Spectral and Textural Information from UAV-Based RGB Imagery. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 142, 109286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, C.; Abd-Elrahman, A.; Whitaker, V.; Dalid, C. Prediction of Strawberry Dry Biomass from UAV Multispectral Imagery Using Multiple Machine Learning Methods. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 4511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asigbaase, M.; Dawoe, E.; Abugre, S.; Kyereh, B.; Ayine Nsor, C. Allometric Relationships between Stem Diameter, Height and Crown Area of Associated Trees of Cocoa Agroforests of Ghana. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 14897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dong, L.; Hu, X.; Yang, W. Study on Crown Prediction Model of Haloxylon Ammodendron in Different Habitats. For. Eng. 2024, 40, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, C. Prediction Model of Single Tree Crown Width of Larix Principis-Rupprechtii in Saihanba National Forest Park. For. Investig. Des. 2023, 52, 88–94. [Google Scholar]
- Pond, N.C.; Froese, R.E. Evaluating Published Approaches for Modelling Diameter at Breast Height from Stump Dimensions. For. Int. J. For. Res. 2014, 87, 683–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.; Sun, J.; Duan, A.; Zhang, J. Variable-Exponent Taper Equation Based on Multilevel Nonlinear Mixed Effect for Chinese Fir in China. Forests 2021, 12, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohan, M.; Silva, C.; Klauberg, C.; Jat, P.; Catts, G.; Cardil, A.; Hudak, A.; Dia, M. Individual Tree Detection from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Derived Canopy Height Model in an Open Canopy Mixed Conifer Forest. Forests 2017, 8, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wongchai, W.; Onsree, T.; Sukkam, N.; Promwungkwa, A.; Tippayawong, N. Machine Learning Models for Estimating above Ground Biomass of Fast Growing Trees. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 199, 117186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fei, S.; Hassan, M.A.; Xiao, Y.; Su, X.; Chen, Z.; Cheng, Q.; Duan, F.; Chen, R.; Ma, Y. UAV-Based Multi-Sensor Data Fusion and Machine Learning Algorithm for Yield Prediction in Wheat. Precis. Agric. 2023, 24, 187–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ye, Z.; Wei, J.; Lin, Y.; Guo, Q.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, H.; Deng, H.; Yang, K. Extraction of Olive Crown Based on UAV Visible Images and the U2-Net Deep Learning Model. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beloiu, M.; Heinzmann, L.; Rehush, N.; Gessler, A.; Griess, V.C. Individual Tree-Crown Detection and Species Identification in Heterogeneous Forests Using Aerial RGB Imagery and Deep Learning. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Dong, A.; Yu, J.; Han, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Zhao, K. Scene Classification for Remote Sensing Images with Self-Attention Augmented CNN. IET Image Process. 2022, 16, 3085–3096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papa, L.; Russo, P.; Amerini, I.; Zhou, L. A Survey on Efficient Vision Transformers: Algorithms, Techniques, and Performance Benchmarking. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2024, 46, 7682–7700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, X.; Zhang, Z.; Huang, C.; Dehghan, M.; Zaiane, O.R.; Jagersand, M. U2-Net: Going Deeper with Nested U-Structure for Salient Object Detection. Pattern Recognit. 2020, 106, 107404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.; Zou, Z.; Sun, W.; Yang, G.; Song, Y.; Liu, Z. Mapping the Distribution and Dynamics of Coastal Aquaculture Ponds Using Landsat Time Series Data Based on U2-Net Deep Learning Model. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2024, 17, 2346258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ning, D.; Lu, B.; Du, C.; Li, Y.; Liao, Y.; Zhang, Y. Division of Suitable Cultivation Areas for Olive in Yunnan Province. China For. Sci. Technol. 2008, 22, 39–41. [Google Scholar]
- LY/T 2259—2014; Technical Regulation on Sample Collections for Biomass Modeling. Standards Press of China: Beijing, China, 2014.
- Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; Duan, A.; Xiang, C. Selection of Biomass Estimation Models for Chinese Fir Plantation. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 21, 3036–3046. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Z.; Luo, Q.; Xu, Z. The Impact of Forest Density on Biomass Allocation Pattern and Allometric Growth of Spruce Stands in Xueling, Western Tianshan Mountains. Arid. Zone Res. 2021, 38, 545–552. [Google Scholar]
- Ye, J.; Wu, B.; Liu, M.; Gao, Y.; Gao, J.; Lei, Y. Estimation of Aboveground Biomass of Vegetation in the Desert-Oasis Ecotone on the Northeastern Edge of the Ulan Buh Desert. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2018, 38, 1216–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lei, L.; Chai, G.; Wang, Y.; Jia, X.; Yin, T.; Zhang, X. Estimating Individual Tree Above-Ground Biomass of Chinese Fir Plantation: Exploring the Combination of Multi-Dimensional Features from UAV Oblique Photos. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Lin, W.; Shen, Z.; Zhang, D.; Xu, B.; Wang, K.; Chen, J. CA-U2-Net: Contour Detection and Attention in U2-Net for Infrared Dim and Small Target Detection. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 88245–88257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Kong, Y.; Zhang, D.; Fu, Y.; Zhuang, S. Two-Dimensional Phase Unwrapping Based on U2-Net in Complex Noise Environment. Opt. Express 2023, 31, 29792–29812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, D.; Yang, Y. Extracting Individual Tree Crown Width from UAV Remote Sensing Images. Cent. South For. Inventory Plan. 2024, 43, 36–40. [Google Scholar]
- Piñeiro, G.; Perelman, S.; Guerschman, J.P.; Paruelo, J.M. How to Evaluate Models: Observed vs. Predicted or Predicted vs. Observed? Ecol. Model. 2008, 216, 316–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Dong, L.; Shi, J. Effect of Competition on the Prediction Accuracy of Individual Tree Biomass Model for Natural Larix Gmelinii Forests. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2024, 35, 1474–1482. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, C.; Luo, D. Model Construction and Optimization of Abies Fabri Scrub Biomass in the Sedera Mountains. J. Green Sci. Technol. 2024, 26, 44–50. [Google Scholar]
- Li, F.; Feng, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Zhu, J.; Wei, X.; Liang, W. Construction and Comparison of Artificial Robinia Pseudoacacia Biomass Model in Caijiachuan Watershed. J. For. Environ. 2024, 44, 62–70. [Google Scholar]
- Sileshi, G.W. A Critical Review of Forest Biomass Estimation Models, Common Mistakes and Corrective Measures. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 329, 237–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menéndez-Miguélez, M.; Calama, R.; Del Río, M.; Madrigal, G.; López-Senespleda, E.; Pardos, M.; Ruiz-Peinado, R. Species-Specific and Generalized Biomass Models for Estimating Carbon Stocks of Young Reforestations. Biomass Bioenergy 2022, 161, 106453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Machimura, T.; Fujimoto, A.; Hayashi, K.; Takagi, H.; Sugita, S. A Novel Tree Biomass Estimation Model Applying the Pipe Model Theory and Adaptable to UAV-Derived Canopy Height Models. Forests 2021, 12, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, J.; Su, M.; Sun, Y.; Pan, W.; Cui, H.; Jin, S.; Zhang, L.; Wang, P. Tree Crown Segmentation and Diameter at Breast Height Prediction Based on BlendMask in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Imagery. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, S.; Narine, L.L.; Gilbert, J. Using Airborne Lidar, Multispectral Imagery, and Field Inventory Data to Estimate Basal Area, Volume, and Aboveground Biomass in Heterogeneous Mixed Species Forests: A Case Study in Southern Alabama. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 2708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Guo, Z. Estimation of Tree Height and Aboveground Biomass of Coniferous Forests in North China Using Stereo ZY-3, Multispectral Sentinel-2, and DEM Data. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 126, 107645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, J. Estimation of Stem Biomass of Individual Abies Faxoniana through Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Remote Sensing. J. Beijing For. Univ. 2016, 38, 42–49. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Wang, X.; Feng, Z.; Sun, S.; Zhang, L.; Liu, P. Study on Crown Prediction Model of Main Tree Species in Songshan Nature Reserve in Beijing. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2020, 22, 94–101. [Google Scholar]
- Fu, B.; Wei, Y.; Jiang, L.; Yao, H.; Li, X.; Yang, Y.; Jia, M.; Sun, W. Estimation of Mangrove Heights and Aboveground Biomass Using UAV-LiDAR, Sentinel-1 and ZY-3 Stereo Images. Ecol. Inform. 2025, 88, 103160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basyuni, M.; Mubaraq, A.; Amelia, R.; Wirasatriya, A.; Iryanthony, S.B.; Slamet, B.; Al Mustaniroh, S.S.; Pradisty, N.A.; Sidik, F.; Hanintyo, R.; et al. Mangrove Aboveground Biomass Estimation Using UAV Imagery and a Constructed Height Model in Budeng–Perancak, Bali, Indonesia. Ecol. Inform. 2025, 86, 103037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Wu, S.; Zhao, Z.; Li, X.; Zeng, F.; Xie, C.; Hou, G.; Luo, G. Estimation of Grassland Biomass Using Machine Learning Methods: A Case Study of Grassland in Qilian Mountains. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2022, 42, 8953–8963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morais, T.G.; Teixeira, R.F.M.; Figueiredo, M.; Domingos, T. The Use of Machine Learning Methods to Estimate Aboveground Biomass of Grasslands: A Review. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 130, 108081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, L.; Meng, S.; Zhou, G.; Liu, Q.; Xu, Z. Uncertainties in above Ground Tree Biomass Estimation. J. For. Res. 2021, 32, 1989–2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayushi, K.; Babu, K.N.; Ayyappan, N.; Nair, J.R.; Kakkara, A.; Reddy, C.S. A Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Techniques for Aboveground Biomass Estimation: A Case Study of the Western Ghats, India. Ecol. Inform. 2024, 80, 102479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Z.; Wang, T.; Liu, S.; Kang, W.; Chen, X.; Feng, K.; Zhang, X.; Zhi, Y. Biomass and Vegetation Coverage Survey in the Mu Us Sandy Land-Based on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle RGB Images. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2021, 94, 102239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Feng, H.; Yue, J.; Li, Z.; Yang, G.; Song, X.; Yang, X.; Zhao, Y. Remote-Sensing Estimation of Potato above-Ground Biomass Based on Spectral and Spatial Features Extracted from High-Definition Digital Camera Images. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2022, 198, 107089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, W.; Sun, Z.; Huang, Y.; Yang, T.; Li, J.; Zhu, K.; Zhang, J.; Yang, B.; Shao, C.; Peng, J.; et al. Optimization of Multi-Source UAV RS Agro-Monitoring Schemes Designed for Field-Scale Crop Phenotyping. Precis. Agric. 2021, 22, 1768–1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, X.; Li, X.; Liu, W.; Zhang, L.; Cheng, D.; Ji, H.; Zhang, W.; Yuan, K. Building Outline Extraction Directly Using the U2-Net Semantic Segmentation Model from High-Resolution Aerial Images and a Comparison Study. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, L.; Wu, K.; Wang, K.; Han, Z.; Qiu, J.; Zhan, Q.; Wu, T.; Xu, J.; Zeng, Z. SEU2-Net: Multi-Scale U2 -Net with SE Attention Mechanism for Liver Occupying Lesion CT Image Segmentation. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2024, 10, e1751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Argun, M.Ş.; Türk, F.; Civelek, Z. U2-net segmentation and multi-label CNN classification of wheat varieties. Konya J. Eng. Sci. 2024, 12, 358–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, Y.; Wang, Q.; Iio, A. Tree Crown Detection and Delineation in a Temperate Deciduous Forest from UAV RGB Imagery Using Deep Learning Approaches: Effects of Spatial Resolution and Species Characteristics. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mo, J.; Lan, Y.; Yang, D.; Wen, F.; Qiu, H.; Chen, X.; Deng, X. Deep Learning-Based Instance Segmentation Method of Litchi Canopy from UAV-Acquired Images. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cloutier, M.; Germain, M.; Laliberté, E. Influence of Temperate Forest Autumn Leaf Phenology on Segmentation of Tree Species from UAV Imagery Using Deep Learning. Remote Sens. Environ. 2024, 311, 114283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]










| Variable | Average | Maximum | Minimum | Standard Deviation | Variation Factor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D (cm) | 11.108 | 18.800 | 5.100 | 3.697 | 0.333 |
| H (m) | 3.686 | 5.350 | 1.830 | 0.750 | 0.203 |
| AGB (kg) | 18.745 | 54.595 | 2.108 | 13.054 | 0.696 |
| BGB (kg) | 5.097 | 12.308 | 0.898 | 2.771 | 0.560 |
| Plot ID | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of individuals | 16 | 17 | 23 | 18 | 16 | 20 | 16 | 22 | 20 | 18 | 19 | 17 | 26 | 16 | 20 |
| D (cm) | Trunk (kg) | Branch (kg) | Bark (kg) | Leaves (kg) | Root (kg) | AGB (kg) | RCR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 1.328 | 1.486 | 0.673 | 0.985 | 1.905 | 4.472 | 0.426 |
| 8 | 3.415 | 2.939 | 1.592 | 1.927 | 3.504 | 9.873 | 0.355 |
| 10 | 5.192 | 3.675 | 2.493 | 2.830 | 4.861 | 14.190 | 0.343 |
| 12 | 6.966 | 4.514 | 3.350 | 3.285 | 4.880 | 18.116 | 0.269 |
| 14 | 10.064 | 5.557 | 4.167 | 4.056 | 8.064 | 23.844 | 0.338 |
| 16 | 19.249 | 9.115 | 7.172 | 6.437 | 8.244 | 41.973 | 0.196 |
| Modeling Factors | Trunk Biomass | Branch Biomass | Bark Biomass | Leaves Biomass | Root Biomass | AGB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D | 0.898 ** | 0.834 ** | 0.826 ** | 0.819 ** | 0.810 ** | 0.909 ** |
| H | 0.721 ** | 0.654 ** | 0.684 ** | 0.627 ** | 0.617 ** | 0.726 ** |
| DH | 0.930 ** | 0.839 ** | 0.856 ** | 0.817 ** | 0.806 ** | 0.931 ** |
| D2H | 0.955 ** | 0.854 ** | 0.868 ** | 0.833 ** | 0.809 ** | 0.952 ** |
| Organ | Biomass Model | Fitting Formula | R2 | MPE | RMSE | TRE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trunk | W = aDb | W = 0.00957D2.687 | 0.903 | 26.609 | 2.011 | 0.980 |
| W = a(DH)b | W = 7.43979 × 10−6(DH)1.643 | 0.896 | 23.484 | 2.085 | −0.768 | |
| W = a(D2H)b | W = 7.2366 × 10−5(D2H)1.059 | 0.928 | 20.689 | 1.738 | 0.061 | |
| W = aDbHc | W = 2.29131 × 10−4D2.313H0.784 | 0.931 | 21.647 | 1.695 | 0.478 | |
| Branch | W = aDb | W = 0.05784D1.773 | 0.717 | 29.736 | 1.517 | 0.990 |
| W = a(DH)b | W = 3.73567 × 10−4(DH)1.120 | 0.712 | 27.444 | 0.082 | 0.149 | |
| W = a(D2H)b | W = 0.00209(D2H)0.707 | 0.733 | 27.144 | 1.473 | 0.535 | |
| W = aDbHc | W = 0.05273D1.518H0.541 | 0.735 | 27.498 | 1.468 | 0.692 | |
| Bark | W = aDb | W = 0.00985D2.338 | 0.722 | 35.069 | 1.389 | 1.329 |
| W = a(DH)b | W = 1.37813 × 10−5(DH)1.469 | 0.738 | 33.178 | 1.348 | −0.130 | |
| W = a(D2H)b | W = 1.15112 × 10−4(D2H)0.939 | 0.755 | 31.617 | 1.303 | 0.688 | |
| W = aDbHc | W = 1.54042 × 10−4D1.926H0.870 | 0.756 | 31.732 | 1.303 | 0.796 | |
| Leaves | W = aDb | W = 0.0361D1.827 | 0.719 | 35.735 | 1.120 | 0.673 |
| W = a(DH)b | W = 2.09793 × 10−4(DH)1.148 | 0.699 | 35.446 | 1.160 | −0.025 | |
| W = a(D2H)b | W = 0.00121(D2H)0.727 | 0.725 | 34.046 | 1.108 | 0.306 | |
| W = aDbHc | W = 0.00435D1.626H0.439 | 0.730 | 34.164 | 1.098 | 0.519 | |
| Root (BGB) | W = aDb | W = 0.15897D1.439 | 0.674 | 27.093 | 1.583 | 0.069 |
| W = a(DH)b | W = 0.0017(DH)0.967 | 0.677 | 28.958 | 1.576 | −0.341 | |
| W = a(D2H)b | W = 0.00859(D2H)0.597 | 0.692 | 27.452 | 1.539 | −0.073 | |
| W = aDbHc | W = 0.012D1.231H0.525 | 0.693 | 27.285 | 1.538 | −0.036 | |
| AGB | W = aDb | W = 0.06773D2.269 | 0.886 | 21.460 | 4.501 | 1.251 |
| W = a(DH)b | W = 1.29974 × 10−4(DH)1.411 | 0.882 | 20.436 | 4.592 | −0.075 | |
| W = a(D2H)b | W = 0.00101(D2H)0.902 | 0.910 | 18.811 | 4.008 | 0.576 | |
| W = aDbHc | W = 0.0025D1.943H0.690 | 0.912 | 19.176 | 3.953 | 0.848 |
| Organ | Biomass Model | Fitting Formula | R2 | MPE | RMSE | TRE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trunk | W = aDbHc | W = 2.29131 × 10−4D2.313H0.784 | 0.833 | 30.826 | 2.416 | −0.763 |
| Branch | W = a(DH)b | W = 3.73567 × 10−4(DH)1.120 | 0.846 | 27.244 | 1.495 | 2.287 |
| Bark | W = aDbHc | W = 1.54042 × 10−4D1.926H0.870 | 0.920 | 32.845 | 1.324 | −4.280 |
| Leaves | W = aDbHc | W = 0.00435D1.626H0.439 | 0.942 | 30.913 | 1.094 | −3.240 |
| Root | W = aDbHc | W = 0.012D1.231H0.525 | 0.734 | 2.716 | 1.515 | −2.555 |
| AGB | W = aDbHc | W = 0.0025D1.943H0.690 | 0.937 | 20.258 | 4.381 | 5.406 |
| CA-D | CA-H | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Function | Formula | R2 | Function | Formula | R2 |
| Linearity | Y = 0.8476x + 5.34059 | 0.728 | Linearity | Y = 14.0497x + 276.13937 | 0.430 |
| Polynomial | Y = 3.48019 + 1.42208x − 0.03413x2 | 0.749 | Polynomial | Y = 241.72672 + 24.67619x − 0.63138x2 | 0.449 |
| Power function | Y = 4.31427x0.513 | 0.751 | Power function | Y = 226.51939x0.268 | 0.500 |
| Index | AMV | APV-UAV | SD-MV | SD-UAV-P | CV-MV | CV-UAV-P | R2 | MPE | RMSE | TRE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D/cm | 11.258 | 11.487 | 3.848 | 3.147 | 0.342 | 0.274 | 0.656 | 20.782 | 2.257 | −1.993 |
| H/m | 3.611 | 3.739 | 0.508 | 0.576 | 0.141 | 0.154 | 0.652 | 6.180 | 0.300 | −3.420 |
| Accuracy Evaluation | ||
|---|---|---|
| P | R | F1-score |
| 0.850746 | 0.850123 | 0.850434 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 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
He, Y.; Kou, W.; Lu, N.; Yang, Y.; Seng Hua, L.; Duan, C.; Yang, Z.; Song, Y.; Gao, J.; Chen, Y. An Efficient Biomass Estimation Model for Large-Scale Olea europaea L. by Integrating UAV-RGB and U2-Net with Allometric Equations. Remote Sens. 2025, 17, 3923. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17233923
He Y, Kou W, Lu N, Yang Y, Seng Hua L, Duan C, Yang Z, Song Y, Gao J, Chen Y. An Efficient Biomass Estimation Model for Large-Scale Olea europaea L. by Integrating UAV-RGB and U2-Net with Allometric Equations. Remote Sensing. 2025; 17(23):3923. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17233923
Chicago/Turabian StyleHe, Yungang, Weili Kou, Ning Lu, Yi Yang, Lee Seng Hua, Chunqin Duan, Ziyi Yang, Yongjun Song, Jiayue Gao, and Yue Chen. 2025. "An Efficient Biomass Estimation Model for Large-Scale Olea europaea L. by Integrating UAV-RGB and U2-Net with Allometric Equations" Remote Sensing 17, no. 23: 3923. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17233923
APA StyleHe, Y., Kou, W., Lu, N., Yang, Y., Seng Hua, L., Duan, C., Yang, Z., Song, Y., Gao, J., & Chen, Y. (2025). An Efficient Biomass Estimation Model for Large-Scale Olea europaea L. by Integrating UAV-RGB and U2-Net with Allometric Equations. Remote Sensing, 17(23), 3923. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17233923

