4.6 Article

Determining Characteristic Vegetation Areas by Terrestrial Laser Scanning for Floodplain Flow Modeling

期刊

WATER
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 420-437

出版社

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/w7020420

关键词

-

资金

  1. Maa- ja vesitekniikan tuki ry
  2. Academy of Finland (Flow-vegetation-sediment interaction project) [133113]
  3. Academy of Finland (Centre of Excellence in Laser Scanning Research) [272195]
  4. Aalto Energy Efficiency Research Programme (Light EnergyEfficient and Safe Traffic Environments project)
  5. EUE project [2141226]
  6. Academy of Finland (AKA) [133113, 133113] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Detailed modeling of floodplain flows and associated processes requires data on mixed, heterogeneous vegetation at river reach scale, though the collection of vegetation data is typically limited in resolution or lack spatial information. This study investigates physically-based characterization of mixed floodplain vegetation by means of terrestrial laser scanning (TLS). The work aimed at developing an approach for deriving the characteristic reference areas of herbaceous and foliated woody vegetation, and estimating the vertical distribution of woody vegetation. Detailed experimental data on vegetation properties were gathered both in a floodplain site for herbaceous vegetation, and under laboratory conditions for 2-3 m tall trees. The total plant area (A(tot)) of woody vegetation correlated linearly with the TLS-based voxel count, whereas the A(tot) of herbaceous vegetation showed a linear correlation with TLS-based vegetation mean height. For woody vegetation, 1 cm voxel size was found suitable for estimating both the A(tot) and its vertical distribution. A new concept was proposed for deriving A(tot) for larger areas from the point cloud attributes of small sub-areas. The results indicated that the relationships between the TLS attributes and A(tot) of the sub-areas can be derived either by mm resolution TLS or by manual vegetation sampling.

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

4.6
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