4.7 Article

Modeling aboveground tree woody biomass using national-scale allometric methods and airborne lidar

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.05.007

Keywords

Biomass; Carbon; Lidar; Allometry; Errors

Funding

  1. Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Estimating tree aboveground biomass (AGB) and carbon (C) stocks using remote sensing is a critical component for understanding the global C cycle and mitigating climate change. However, the importance of allometry for remote sensing of AGB has not been recognized until recently. The overarching goals of this study are to understand the differences and relationships among three national-scale allometric methods (CRM, Jenkins, and the regional models) of the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program in the U.S. and to examine the impacts of using alternative allometry on the fitting statistics of remote sensing-based woody AGB models. Airborne lidar data from three study sites in the Pacific Northwest, USA were used to predict woody AGB estimated from the different allometric methods. It was found that the CRM and Jenkins estimates of woody AGB are related via the CRM adjustment factor. In terms of lidar-biomass modeling, CRM had the smallest model errors, while the Jenkins method had the largest ones and the regional method was between. The best model fitting from CRM is attributed to its inclusion of tree height in calculating merchantable stem volume and the strong dependence of non-merchantable stem biomass on merchantable stem biomass. This study also argues that it is important to characterize the allometric model errors for gaining a complete understanding of the remotely-sensed AGB prediction errors. (C) 2015 International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Inc. (ISPRS). Published by Elsevier B.V. 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