4.7 Article

Modeling tree canopy height using machine learning over mixed vegetation landscapes

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jag.2021.102353

Keywords

Tree canopy height; LiDAR; Random forest; Spatial non-stationarity; Landsat

Categories

Funding

  1. NSF Idaho EPSCoR Program
  2. National Science Foundation [OIA1757324]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Combining LiDAR and Landsat datasets, the study used spatially-weighted geographical random forest (GRF) and traditional random forest (TRF) methods to predict tree canopy height in a mixed dry forest woodland in complex mountainous terrain. Comparisons between the two models showed that the GRF model could lower extreme residuals, leading to stronger model performance.
Although the random forest algorithm has been widely applied to remotely sensed data to predict characteristics of forests, such as tree canopy height, the effect of spatial non-stationarity in the modeling process is oftentimes neglected. Previous studies have proposed methods to address the spatial variance at local scales, but few have explored the spatial autocorrelation pattern of residuals in modeling tree canopy height or investigated the relationship between canopy height and model performance. By combining Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and Landsat datasets, we used spatially-weighted geographical random forest (GRF) and traditional random forest (TRF) methods to predict tree canopy height in a mixed dry forest woodland in complex mountainous terrain. Comparisons between TRF and GRF models show that the latter can lower predefined extreme residuals, and thus make the model performance relatively stronger. Moreover, the relationship between model performance and degree of variation of true canopy height can vary considerably within different height quantiles. Both models are likely to present underestimates and overestimates when the corresponding tree canopy heights are high ( 95% quantile) and low (

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