4.7 Article

Mapping tropical forest carbon: Calibrating plot estimates to a simple LiDAR metric

Journal

REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT
Volume 140, Issue -, Pages 614-624

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2013.09.023

Keywords

Aboveground carbon density; Biomass; Carbon stock estimation; Carnegie Airborne Observatory; LiDAR; Lorey's height; National forest inventory; Rainforest

Funding

  1. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
  2. Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mapping aboveground carbon density (ACD) in tropical forests can enhance large-scale ecological studies and support CO2 emissions monitoring. Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) has proven useful for estimating carbon density patterns outside of field plot inventory networks. However, the accuracy and generality of calibrations between LiDAR-assisted ACD predictions (EACD(LiDAR)) and estimated ACD based on field inventory techniques (EACD(field)) must be increased in order to make tropical forest carbon mapping more widely available. Using a network of 804 field inventory plots distributed across a wide range of tropical vegetation types, climates and successional states, we present a general conceptual and technical approach for linking tropical forest EACD(field) to LiDAR top-of-canopy height (TCH) using regional-scale inputs of basal area and wood density. With this approach, we show that EACD(LiDAR) and EACD(field) reach nearly 90% agreement at 1-ha resolution for a wide array of tropical vegetation types. We also show that Lorey's Height - a common metric used to calibrate LiDAR measurements to biomass - is severely flawed in open canopy forests that are common to the tropics. Our proposed approach can advance the use of airborne and space-based LiDAR measurements for estimation of tropical forest carbon stocks. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available