An African Tree Crown–Stem Allometry Dataset for Monitoring Trees Outside Forests and Landscape Restoration
Abstract. Very high-resolution (VHR) satellite imagery and advances in machine learning increasingly enable individual tree crowns to be mapped across large landscapes, creating new opportunities for census-based estimation of tree biomass and carbon. A fundamental limitation, however, is that satellite imagery can measure crown dimensions but cannot directly observe diameter at breast height (DBH), the principal predictor used in conventional tree biomass allometry. This measurement gap is particularly important in African landscapes dominated by trees outside forests (TOF), where trees are spatially dispersed, conventional forest inventory sampling is difficult to scale, and ground datasets containing concurrent measurements of crown and stem dimensions remain scarce. Here, we present an African individual-tree crown–stem allometry dataset designed to provide the empirical link between remotely observable crown dimensions and the stem measurements required by established biomass allometric models. The dataset was collected using a standardized field protocol across landscapes associated with African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative (AFR100) projects in Kenya, Ghana, Rwanda, and Malawi. The sampled landscapes encompass agroforestry, reforestation, assisted natural regeneration, and other restoration and land-management systems representative of TOF conditions. Following quality control, the dataset contains 3,493 individual trees with concurrent measurements of DBH, two perpendicular crown diameters, tree height, species identity, geographic location, and associated plot and landscape identifiers. Field measurements were designed for spatial linkage with individual tree crowns delineated from VHR satellite imagery, providing calibration observations for translating remotely sensed crown projected area (CA) into stem diameter.
We demonstrate this application by fitting power-law DBH–CA transfer functions and evaluating their predictive performance across sites and countries. All site-specific relationships were significant (p < 0.001), with R² values ranging from 0.44 to 0.85 and generally small prediction bias. Variation in model coefficients and predictive error among landscapes demonstrates substantial ecological and structural heterogeneity in crown–stem relationships and emphasizes the value of geographically distributed calibration data rather than reliance on a single universal allometric relationship. A hierarchical synthesis of 19 site-specific models further demonstrates how these data can be used to derive a generalized crown-to-stem relationship while retaining information on among-landscape variation. The principal contribution of this dataset is therefore to provide a measurement bridge between individual-tree remote sensing and conventional stem-based biomass allometry. VHR imagery and machine-learning methods can delineate individual crowns and measure their projected areas; crown-to-stem transfer functions calibrated with these field data can then estimate DBH; and established DBH-based allometric equations can subsequently be used to estimate biomass and carbon for each remotely detected tree. This framework extends individual-tree allometric scaling from field plots to landscape-scale tree censuses while maintaining compatibility with established forest mensuration and biomass estimation methods. The dataset has applications beyond the models demonstrated here, including development and validation of alternative crown–stem and crown–biomass models, analysis of tree structural and species-level variation, ecological scaling studies, and calibration of individual-tree remote-sensing products. It provides a reusable observational resource for advancing the inclusion of TOF in Forest and Landscape Restoration monitoring, carbon accounting, and measurement, reporting, and verification across African landscapes.
General comments
Very interesting, useful, and mostly well-written paper. The data set, once carefully revised, will be a great contribution to the research community.
I agree with the authors that “making concurrent crown, stem, height, species, and spatial measurements available for reuse, the dataset provides a foundation for improving crown-based allometry, testing ecological scaling relationships, developing and validating new individual-tree remote-sensing methods, and extending biomass and carbon measurement to TOF landscapes.” However, although the manuscript stresses that the data was carefully cleaned (“The dataset has also undergone explicit quality control: records lacking required measurements or reliable geographic coordinates and trees with structural conditions that could compromise conventional crown–stem allometry were excluded”), the data available online contains many erroneous and suspicious entries. These must be checked and corrected before the data and the manuscript can be published. Unfortunately, this implies that many numerical analyses in the manuscript have to be rerun, as most likely most of the results will (slightly) change.
Specific comments
Data mismatch
I have downloaded the data, and there is a mismatch between the data and several numbers reported in the manuscript. This must be fixed before the manuscript can be considered. For example:
I do not fully understand the numbers in line 287: „The total number of sampled individuals by genus and species was 953 for Kenya, 895 for Ghana, 521 for Rwanda, and 527 for Malawi.“ How are they related to Table 3?
Coordinates must be checked
The manuscript explicitly states “We also ensured spatial consistency by removing individual tree entries with missing or incorrect geographic coordinates, as these could not be reliably integrated with remote sensing data.”
However, almost 40 trees in Kenya_Allometric_Data.xlsx, sheet ITF_KE, have no coordinates and there is at least one tree without coordinates in sheet MKEC_KE.
What seems to be even more problematic is that many coordinates do not seem to be plausible. Several tree coordinates seem to contradict the stated protocol (1-ha circular plots) or have not suspicious values. For example,
Plot centres might be wrong for entire sites: the latitude sign seems to be missing for all DREK plots and KITUI EPZ trees often seem to lie more than1 km from their plot centres.
If I interpret the coordinates correctly, the BIRDLIFE plot 2 centre is in DR Congo, not in Rwanda.
Some plots seem to have trees several hundred meters apart (e.g., CERATH_GH plot 11, line 167). Because it would be nice to link field trees to crowns in high resolution remote sensing imagery, all coordinates should be rechecked.
Small trees not excluded
In line 220, the manuscript states that tress with DBH larger than 5cm were measured. However, in the data several trees have DBH smaller than 5cm, for example in Kenya, see ILEG_KE at the end of the list or KFT_KE, and Malawi, WFZ_MA.
Tree species naming
Misspellings inflate the species counts in Table 3 considerably, and they also change Figure 4. For example, there seem to be much(!) less than 170 species in Kenya after fixing whitespaces, spelling, and merging synonyms.
Logarithmic linear regression
Log-log Transformation (2): It is clear what is meant by „The transformation improves model linearity and homoscedasticity“, but the formulation could be a bit misleading, I suggest to rephrase. Note that logarithmic linear regression does not necessarily minimise the mean squared error (and therefore the R2) in the original space.
Baskerville correction
The Baskerville correction (3) only fixes the bias in the original space under several assumptions, in particular the error terms (residuals) in the original, arithmetic scale are lognormally distributed. This should be stated.
Hierarchical model
The hierarchical modelling is not clearly explained. Equation (4) and (5) are not linked. The fitting process is not clear. Is it done in two step? First the global model is fit using the weights from (5), and then the local models are fit where beta_0 and beat_1 are set to the values from the first step? If the latter is true: Isn’t it trivial that each site-specific model can be written in the form of (5)? Is this a true hierarchical approach as each site-specific models does not change (the function remains the same, only the parameterization differs)?
This weighting (5) appears to be very heuristic and is not well motivated. R² already measures the fit (and contains a 1/MSE term), so why additionally downweighing by the RMSE? Doesn’t the latter punish sites with big trees?
Validation
„Cross-validation“: random 80/20 splits within each site only test within-site prediction. Leaving out one whole site at a time would be interesting to see. I understand that it is one of the points of the paper that this is generalization is difficult, still would be nice to see how the not site-specific model learned in the "hierarchical" approach generalizes to new sites.
Technical/minor comments