4.7 Article

Mapping Above- and Below-Ground Biomass Components in Subtropical Forests Using Small-Footprint LiDAR

期刊

FORESTS
卷 5, 期 6, 页码 1356-1373

出版社

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/f5061356

关键词

biomass components; carbon; small-footprint LiDAR; subtropical forests; southeastern China

类别

资金

  1. research grant named Adaptation of Asia-Pacific Forests to Climate Change - Asia-Pacific Network for Sustainable Forest Management and Rehabilitation [APFNet/2010/PPF/001]
  2. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to better assess the spatial variability in subtropical forest biomass, the goal of our study was to use small-footprint, discrete-return Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data to accurately estimate and map above-and below-ground biomass components of subtropical forests. Foliage, branch, trunk, root, above-ground and total biomass of 53 plots (30 x 30 m) were modeled using a range of LiDAR-derived metrics, with individual models built for each of the three dominant forest types using stepwise multi-regression analysis. A regular grid covered the entire study site with cell size 30 x 30 m corresponding to the same size of the plots; it was generated for mapping each biomass component. Overall, results indicate that biomass estimation was more accurate in coniferous forests, compared with the mixed and broadleaved plots. The coefficient of determination (R-2) for individual models was significantly enhanced compared with an overall generic, or common, model. Using independent stand-level data from ground inventory, our results indicated that overall the model fit was significant for most of the biomass components, with relationships close to a 1: 1 line, thereby indicating no significant bias. This research illustrates the potential for LiDAR as a technology to assess subtropical forest carbon accurately and to provide a better understanding of how forest ecosystems function in 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