4.7 Review

Terrestrial laser scanning in forest ecology: Expanding the horizon

期刊

REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT
卷 251, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2020.112102

关键词

Terrestrial laser scanning; Ground-based LiDAR; Forest ecology; Forest plot measurement; Tree structure; Remote sensing

资金

  1. NSF Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS)RCN [1455636]
  2. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [835398]
  3. BELSPO (Belgian Science Policy Office) [SR/02/355]
  4. Academy of Finland [315079]
  5. Programme Investissement d'Avenir - Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-10-LABX-25-01, ANR-10-LABX-0041]
  6. NERC [NE/P011780/1, NE/N00373X/1, nceo020002] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  8. Direct For Biological Sciences [1455636] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) was introduced for basic forest measurements, such as tree height and diameter, in the early 2000s. Recent advances in sensor and algorithm development have allowed us to assess in situ 3D forest structure explicitly and revolutionised the way we monitor and quantify ecosystem structure and function. Here, we provide an interdisciplinary focus to explore current developments in TLS to measure and monitor forest structure. We argue that TLS data will play a critical role in understanding fundamental ecological questions about tree size and shape, allometric scaling, metabolic function and plasticity of form. Furthermore, these new developments enable new applications such as radiative transfer modelling with realistic virtual forests, monitoring of urban forests and larger scale ecosystem monitoring through long-range scanning. Finally, we discuss upscaling of TLS data through data fusion with unmanned aerial vehicles, airborne and spaceborne data, as well as the essential role of TLS in validation of spaceborne missions that monitor ecosystem structure.

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