4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Augmenting size models for Pinus strobiformis seedlings using dimensional estimates from unmanned aircraft systems

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
卷 50, 期 9, 页码 890-904

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-2019-0325

关键词

UAS; common garden; multispectral; Pinus; structure from motion (SfM)

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1442597]
  2. National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the McIntire Stennis project [OREZ-FERM-875]
  3. Division Of Environmental Biology
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences [1442597] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In forestry, common garden experiments traditionally require manual measurements and visual inspections. Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are a newer method of monitoring plants that is potentially more efficient than traditional techniques. This study had two objectives: to assess the size and mortality of Pinus strobiformis Engelm. seedlings using UAS and to predict the second-year seedling size using manual measurements from the first year and from UAS size estimates. Raised boxes containing 150 seedlings were surveyed twice, one year apart, using multispectral UAS. Seedling heights and diameters at root collar (DRC) were measured manually in both years. We found that size estimates made using a vegetation mask were suitable predictors for size, while spectral indices were not. Furthermore, we provided evidence that inclusion of UAS size estimates as predictors improves the fit of the models. Our study suggests that common variables used in forest monitoring are not necessarily best suited for seedlings. Therefore, we created a new variable, called the longitudinal area (height x DRC), which proved to be a significant predictor for both height and DRC. Finally, we demonstrate that seedling mortality can be effectively measured from remotely sensed data, which is useful for common garden and regeneration studies.

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