4.2 Article

Comparing biophysical forest characteristics estimated from photogrammetric matching of aerial images and airborne laser scanning data

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 73-86

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2014.961954

Keywords

digital aerial images; photogrammetry; forest inventory; airborne laser scanning; image matching

Categories

Funding

  1. Norwegian Forest Trust Fund (Skogtiltaksfondet)
  2. Forest Development Fund (Utviklingsfondet for skogbruket)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent development in aerial digital cameras and software facilitate the photogrammetric point cloud as a new data source in forest management planning. A total of 151 field training plots were distributed systematically within three predefined strata in a 852.6 ha study area located in the boreal forest in southeastern Norway. Stratum-specific regression models were fitted for six studied biophysical forest characteristics. The explanatory variables were various canopy height and canopy density metrics derived by means of photogrammetric matching of aerial images and small-footprint laser scanning. The ground sampling distance was 17 cm for the images and the airborne laser scanning (ALS) pulse density was 7.4 points m(-2). Resampled images were assessed to mimic acquisitions at higher flying altitudes. The digital terrain model derived from the ALS data was used to represent the ground surface. The results were evaluated using 63 independent test stands. When estimating height in young forest and mature forest on poor sites, the root mean square error (RMSE) values were slightly better using data from image matching compared to ALS. However, for all other combinations of biophysical forest characteristics and strata, better results were obtained using ALS data. In general, the best results were found using the highest image resolution.

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