Demonstrates a novel method for predicting moisture content in living trees, suggesting improved tree monitoring techniques.
A nondestructive, rapid, and portable detection method for moisture content (MC) in living tree trunks remains unavailable. Tree radar, developed based on ground-penetrating radar (GPR) technology, represents a promising approach for tree trunk MC detection owing to its high penetration depth and low susceptibility to environmental interference. However, its application to living tree MC detection is constrained by curvature-induced wave propagation complexity, interspecific structural heterogeneity and the limited availability of labeled MC samples obtained through destructive coring, collectively resulting in poor model performance. The study proposed a novel GPR-based MC detection method employing a multi-scale one-dimensional convolutional neural network integrated with an attention mechanism and mixed data augmentation (mixed-MS1DCNNAM). GPR amplitude data extracted from the first 6.5 ns of B-scan signals were used to capture MC-related features via a custom program developed in MATGPR. A mixed model for four tree species with 15–30 cm diameters at breast height (DBH) achieved an R2 of 0.7908 and an RMSE value of 0.1059, outperforming traditional models, with test metrics calculated at the tree level by averaging predictions from five directional GPR scans per tree. Furthermore, three DBH-specific sub-models (15–20 cm, 20–25 cm, and 25–30 cm) and four single-species sub-models were developed, yielding improved performance (R2 ≥ 0.7246, RMSE ≤ 0.1033; RMSE ≤ 0.0959, MAE ≤ 0.0626, except for European white birch). These results highlighted the effectiveness of stratification by DBH class and tree species. Overall, this study effectively addresses aforementioned challenges and establishes a generalizable nondestructive approach for living trees under field conditions, facilitating sustainable forest management in tree growth monitoring, forest disaster monitoring, harvested timber storage and wood quality assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: