4.2 Article

Estimating stem diameter distributions from airborne laser scanning data and their effects on long term forest management planning

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 186-196

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2014.978888

Keywords

decision support system; Weibull distribution; airborne laser scanning; forest management planning; suboptimal loss; Heureka

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Data obtained from airborne laser scanning (ALS) are frequently used for acquiring forest data. Using a relatively low number of laser pulses per unit area (<= 5 pulses per m(2)), this technique is typically used to estimate stand mean values. In this study stand diameter distributions were also estimated, with the aim of improving the information available for effective forest management and planning. Plot level forest data, such as stem number and mean height, together with diameter distributions in the form of Weibull distributions, were estimated using ALS data. Stand-wise tree lists were then estimated. These estimations were compared to data obtained from a field survey of 124 stands in northern Sweden. In each stand an average of seven sample plots (radius 5-10 m) were systematically sampled. The ALS approach was then compared to a mean value approach where only mean values are estimated and tree lists are simulated using a forest decision support system (DSS). The ALS approach provided a better match to observed diameter distributions: ca. 35% lower error indices used as a measure of accuracy and these results are in line with the previous studies. Moreover - which is unique compared to earlier studies - suboptimal losses were assessed. Using the Heureka DSS the suboptimal losses in terms of net present value due to erroneous decisions were compared. Although no large difference was found, the ALS approach showed smaller suboptimal loss than the mean value approach.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available