4.7 Article

Assessing the Feasibility of Low-Density LiDAR for Stand Inventory Attribute Predictions in Complex and Managed Forests of Northern Maine, USA

期刊

FORESTS
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 363-383

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f5020363

关键词

LiDAR; inventory; northern forest; silvicultural treatments; mixed species; multi-canopy; random forest

类别

资金

  1. University of Maine Agriculture and Forest Experimental Station
  2. Cooperative Forestry Research Unit

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to evaluate the applicability of using a low-density (1-3 points m(-2)) discrete-return LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) for predicting maximum tree height, stem density, basal area, quadratic mean diameter and total volume. The research was conducted at the Penobscot Experimental Forest in central Maine, where a range of stand structures and species composition is present and generally representative of northern Maine's forests. Prediction models were developed utilizing the random forest algorithm that was calibrated using reference data collected in fixed radius circular plots. For comparison, the volume model used two sets of reference data, with one being fixed radius circular plots and the other variable radius plots. Prediction biases were evaluated with respect to five silvicultural treatments and softwood species composition based on the coefficient of determination (R-2), root mean square error and mean bias, as well as residual scatter plots. Overall, this study found that LiDAR tended to underestimate maximum tree height and volume. The maximum tree height and volume models had R-2 values of 86.9% and 72.1%, respectively. The accuracy of volume prediction was also sensitive to the plot type used. While it was difficult to develop models with a high R-2, due to the complexities of Maine's forest structures and species composition, the results suggest that low density LiDAR can be used as a supporting tool in forest management for this region.

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

4.7
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