Search

As studies have underlined the sensitivity of lidar metrics to scan angles, the objective of this study was twofold. Firstly, we further investigated the influence of lidar scan angle on the ABA predictions of stand attributes of riparian (29 field plots), broadleaf (42 field plots), coniferous (31 field plots) and mixed (45 field plots) forest types in France. Secondly, we evaluated the potential of voxelisation approaches to normalise scan angle effects in lidar metrics and mitigate scan angle effects in ABA models. To achieve these objectives, we first selected a model based on four lidar metrics with different sensitivities to lidar scan angle, i.e. mean and variance of canopy height values, gap-fraction, and coefficient of variation of plant area density (PAD) profile. For each plot, we considered the point cloud scanned from one flight line independently and characterised each resulting point cloud by the mean scan angle (MSA) and classified them into one of three classes: A (0° <= MSA < 10°), B (10°<= MSA < 20°) or C (20°<= MSA < 30°). An experimental setup involving nine scenarios was conceived to study the impact of the number of flight lines (scenarios fl1 , fl2 and fl3) and predominant scan angle (scenarios A, B or C) or combination of scan angle directions (scenarios A and B , or A and C , or B and C), on area-based approach (ABA) models. We built ABA models for the same forest plots for 5000 resampled datasets in each scenario to predict three forest attributes, i.e., stem and total volume (V st and V tot) and basal area (BA). Three goodness-of-fit criteria were computed for each model (coefficient of determination (R2), relative root mean square error (rRMSE) and mean percentage error (MPE). We compared the distributions of the goodness-of-fit criteria between scenarios to assess the behaviour of the predictive models when: 1) the number of flight lines (i.e., scan angles) increases (fl1, fl2 or fl3); 2) lidar datasets comprise specific scan angle (A, B or C) or combination of scan angles (AB, AC or BC); 3) voxelisation is used to compute P f and CV PAD. The results show that models built with point clouds scanned from multiple flight lines were more robust, with a lower standard deviation of their goodness-of-fit criteria. On average, across all forest types, compared to fl1, the standard deviations of R2 distributions were lower for fl2 and fl3 by 42 % and 77 %, respectively. We also observed that a dataset with a predominantly nadir configuration (i.e., scenario A) did not always result in better predictions (mean R2 higher by 0.08, 0.07, 0.04 for scenario B for broadleaf, coniferous and mixed, respectively). For a set of calibration plots, the resulting forest attribute models depend on the acquisition geometry over the plots, as observed in this study, which could result in unreliable wall-to-wall predictions. The risk is particularly high in acquisitions with low overlapping rates, with many areas covered by only one flight line. Using voxel-based P f and CV PAD together with the mean and variance of heights helped to mitigate the impacts of changes in scan angles by a) increasing the means of the distributions, thereby improving the accuracy of predictions, or b) reducing the standard deviations, thereby increasing prediction precision, or c) both of the above. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI), specifically designed to measure vertical forest structures, has acquired, since April 2019, more than 35 billion waveforms of Earth's surface on a nearly global scale. GEDI is equipped with 3 identical 1064 nm lasers with a power of 10 mJ per shot, where 1 laser is split into 2 lasers, resulting in two 5 mJ coverage lasers and two 10 mJ full-power lasers. In this study, we evaluate the potential of GEDI's four lasers to penetrate through canopies and detect the ground, and their capabilities to detect the top of the canopies over a tropical forest (in French Guiana) characterized by a dense canopy cover and tall trees. The accurate detection of both of these surfaces is the first step in characterizing vertical forest structures. The SRTM Digital Elevation Model (DEM) is used as a reference point for elevations while a canopy height model (CHM), derived from airborne and spaceborne LiDAR data, is used as a reference for canopy heights. In addition, the ground and canopy-top elevations estimated from NASA's Land, Vegetation, and Ice Sensor (LVIS, 1064 nm full-waveform LiDAR, 5 mJ per shot, ~8 km altitude) are used as a benchmark for comparison with GEDI's lasers. Results indicate that GEDI's coverage and full-power lasers, even after the application of a preliminary filter that removes around 50% of acquisitions, tend to underestimate tree heights in densely vegetated, tall forests. Moreover, GEDI's coverage lasers also exhibited a lower level of performance in comparison to both the full-power lasers and LVIS. Overall, the average estimated maximum canopy heights (RH100) for a CHM greater than 30 m was 24.4 m with the coverage lasers, 32.1 m with the full-power lasers, and 36.7 m with LVIS. The analysis of shots with high-beam sensitivity (sensitivity ≥ 98%) showed that they tend to have a better probability of reaching the ground and have better detection of canopy tops for both GEDI laser types. Nonetheless, GEDI's coverage lasers still showed an underestimation of canopy heights with an average RH100 of 29.8 m, while for GEDI's full-power lasers and LVIS, the average RH100 was 35.2 m and 37.7 m, respectively. Finally, the assessment of the acquisition time on the detection of the ground return and the top of the canopies showed that, for the coverage lasers, solar noise could affect the detection of the ground return as acquisitions made during early mornings or late afternoons have more penetration than shots acquired between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. The effect of acquisition time on the detection of the tops of canopies showed that solar noise slightly affected the coverage lasers. Regarding the full-power lasers, the acquisition time of the shots seem to affect neither the penetration of the lasers, nor the detection of the tops of canopies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]