Table 1. Coordinates of the center of each test site, forest types, and dates of controlled burnings and pre- and post-fire terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) measurements. The test sites are located in southern Finland. | |||||
Site | Coordinates (N, E) | Forest type | Pre-fire TLS | Burning | Post-fire TLS |
Kivimäensalo | 62°18.419’, 27°41.495’ | mesic heath | 10 Jun 2021 | 6 Jul 2021 | 9 Sep 2021 |
Liesjärvi | 60°39.043’, 24°1.070’ | sub-xeric heath | 16 Jun 2021 | 17 Jun 2021 | 5 Sep 2021 |
Pyhä-Häkki | 62°51.358’, 25°25.417’ | sub-xeric heath | 13 Jun 2021 | 30 Jun 2021 | 7 Sep 2021 |
Nuuksio | 60°19.484’, 24°32.349’ | sub-xeric heath | 6 Jun 2021 | 7 Jun 2021 | 30 Jun 2021 |
Seitseminen | 61°58.080’, 23°24.735’ | sub-xeric heath | 20 Jun 2021 | 1 Jul 2021 | 6 Sep 2021 |
Evo | 61°13.342’, 25°11.761’ | mesic heath | 3 Jun 2022 | 15 Aug 2022 | 18 Aug 2022 |
Ruunaa | 63°22.814’, 30°30.132’ | sub-xeric heath | 9 Jun 2022 | 30 Jun 2022 | 3 Jul 2022 |
Salamajärvi | 63°17.267’, 24°37.976’ | dry heath | 13 Jul 2022 | 16 Aug 2022 | 13 Sep 2022 |
Table 2. Stand characteristics and mean elevation of controlled burning sites. N = number of stems, G = basal area, Dg = basal area weighted mean diameter at breast height, Hg = basal area weighted mean height, Vol = stem volume, CC = canopy cover. The test sites are located in southern Finland. | |||||||||
Site | Area (ha) | N (ha–1) | G (m2 ha–1) | Dg (cm) | Hg (m) | Vol (m3 ha–1) | CC (%) | Stand age (~y) | Elevation (m) |
Kivimäensalo | 1.2 | 732 | 17.1 | 18.7 | 16.9 | 140 | 54 | 60 | 164 |
Liesjärvi | 1.0 | 527 | 12.7 | 19.2 | 16.1 | 93 | 42 | 60 | 140 |
Pyhä-Häkki | 1.0 | 1 147 | 31.4 | 21.7 | 18.3 | 261 | 79 | 70 | 176 |
Nuuksio | 1.1 | 369 | 21.2 | 31.0 | 20.6 | 205 | 55 | 150 | 100 |
Seitseminen | 1.0 | 687 | 25.3 | 24.3 | 21.6 | 260 | 55 | 50 | 184 |
Evo | 1.2 | 751 | 23.7 | 26.3 | 18.6 | 210 | 68 | 60 | 171 |
Ruunaa | 0.9 | 948 | 28.5 | 21.5 | 19.6 | 274 | 76 | 120 | 152 |
Salamajärvi | 1.0 | 919 | 30.7 | 23.0 | 19.6 | 272 | 65 | 70 | 190 |
Table 3. Recall, precision, and F1-score quantifying the performance of the classification method for identifying ‘burned’ and ‘unburned’ areas for each controlled burning site. | |||
Site | Recall | Precision | F1-score |
Kivimäensalo | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.98 |
Liesjärvi | 0.77 | 1.00 | 0.87 |
Pyhä-Häkki | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 |
Nuuksio | 0.94 | 0.80 | 0.86 |
Seitseminen | 0.80 | 1.00 | 0.89 |
Evo | 0.87 | 0.65 | 0.74 |
Ruunaa | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 |
Salamajärvi | 0.94 | 0.75 | 0.83 |
Mean | 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.88 |
Table 4. Proportions of 1 × 1 m cells classified as ‘burned’ and ‘unburned’ for each controlled burning site. | ||
Site | Proportion of 1 × 1 m cells | |
‘Burned’ | ‘Unburned’ | |
Kivimäensalo | 95% | 5% |
Liesjärvi | 95% | 5% |
Pyhä-Häkki | 92% | 8% |
Nuuksio | 83% | 17% |
Seitseminen | 94% | 6% |
Evo | 51% | 49% |
Ruunaa | 96% | 4% |
Salamajärvi | 71% | 29% |