4.4 Article

Tracking forest attributes across Canada between 2001 and 2011 using a k nearest neighbors mapping approach applied to MODIS imagery

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
Volume 48, Issue 1, Pages 85-93

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-2017-0184

Keywords

forest inventory; forest monitoring; biomass change; nonparametric estimation; disturbances

Categories

Funding

  1. Forest Change initiative of the Canadian Forest Service (CFS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mapping Canada's forests is a significant challenge given their extent and the interprovincial differences in forest inventories. We created new sets of nationally consistent forest attribute maps for the years 2001 and 2011 by building upon previously published work with the objective to determine if sequential maps of forest attributes could be used to quantify changes over time. We first refined our previously published methodology of using the k nearest neighbors (kNN) prediction method and MODIS spectral reflectance data as predictive variables. The maps were generated using an improved reference dataset and a new analytical kNN workflow. We then evaluated 2001 to 2011 changes in two key attributes, aboveground biomass and percent tree cover, on pixels identified from published sources as having undergone fire, harvest, or postdisturbance regrowth during that period. For all three change types, average changes in both aboveground biomass and percent tree cover between 2001 and 2011 matched expectations relative to the dynamics of Canadian forests. Our results support the use of sequential national maps of forest attributes for evaluating regionally aggregated disturbance-related changes in forest properties. The new forest attribute maps are available from Beaudoin et al. (2017; doi:10.23687/ec9e2659-1c29-4ddb-87a2-6aced147a990) at http://ouvert.canada.ca/data/fr/dataset/ec9e2659-1c29-4ddb-87a2-6aced147a990.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available