Effects of different sensors and leaf-on and leaf-off canopy conditions on echo distributions and individual tree properties derived from airborne laser scanning

The objectives of this study were to quantify and analyze differences in laser height and laser intensity distributions of individual trees obtained from airborne laser scanner (ALS) data for different canopy conditions (leaf-on vs. leaf-off) and sensors. It was also assessed how estimated tree height, stem diameter, and tree species were influenced by these differences. The study was based on 412 trees from a boreal forest reserve in Norway. Three different ALS acquisitions were carried out. Leaf-on and leaf-off data were acquired with the Optech ALTM 3100 sensor, and an additional leaf-on dataset was acquired using the Optech ALTM 1233 sensor. Laser echoes located within the vertical projection of the tree crowns were attributed to different echo categories (first echoes of many, single echoes, last echoes of many) and analyzed. The most pronounced changes in laser height distribution from leaf-on to leaf-off were found for the echo categories denoted as single and last echoes of many where the distributions were shifted towards the ground under leaf-off conditions. The most pronounced change in the intensity distribution was found for first echoes of many where the distribution was extremely skewed towards the lower values under leaf-off conditions compared to leaf-on. Furthermore, the echo height and intensity distributions obtained for the two different sensors also differed significantly. Individual tree properties were estimated fairly accurately in all acquisitions with RMSE ranging from 0.76 to 0.84 m for tree height and from 3.10 to 3.17 cm for stem diameter. It was revealed that tree species was an important model term in both and tree height and stem diameter models. A significantly higher overall accuracy of tree species classification was obtained using the leaf-off acquisition (90 vs. 98%) whereas classification accuracy did not differ much between sensors (90 vs. 93%). (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.