4.4 Article

Estimation of leaf area index and canopy openness in broadleaved forest using an airborne laser scanner in comparison with high-resolution near-infrared digital photography

期刊

LANDSCAPE AND ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 47-55

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s11355-008-0041-8

关键词

LIDAR; vegetation indices; forest structure; laser point density

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We estimated leaf area index (LAI) and canopy openness of broad-leaved forest using discrete return and small-footprint airborne laser scanner (ALS) data. We tested four ALS variables, including two newly proposed ones, using three echo types (first, last, and only) and three classes (ground, vegetation, and upper vegetation), and compared the accuracy by means of correlation and regression analysis with seven conventional vegetation indices derived from simultaneously acquired high-resolution near-infrared digital photographs. Among the ALS variables, the ratio of the only-and-ground pulse to only pulse (OGF) was the best estimator of both LAI (adjusted R-2 = 0.797) and canopy openness (adjusted R-2 = 0.832), followed by the ratio of the pulses that reached the ground to projected lasers (GF). Among the vegetation indices, the normalized differential vegetation index (NDVI) was the best estimator of both LAI (adjusted R-2 = 0.791) and canopy openness (adjusted R-2 = 0.764). Resampling analysis on ALS data to examine whether the estimation of LAI and canopy openness was possible with lower point densities revealed that GF maintained a high adjusted R-2 until a fairly low density of about 0.226 points/m(2), while OGF performed marginally when the point density was reduced to about 1 point/m(2), the standard density of high-density products on the market as of February 2008. Consequently, the ALS variables proposed in the present study, GF and OGF, seemed to have great potential to estimate LAI and canopy openness of broadleaved forest, with accuracy comparable to NDVI, from high-resolution near-infrared imagery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据