4.7 Article

Regional Bare-Earth Digital Terrain Model for Costa Rica Based on NASADEM Corrected for Vegetation Bias

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 14, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs14102421

关键词

CRDTM2020; bare-earth digital elevation model; digital terrain model; vegetation bias; NASADEM; LVIS

资金

  1. National University of Costa Rica
  2. Ministry of Science, Innovation, Technology and Telecommunications of Costa Rica

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study calculated a 1'' Bare-Earth Digital Terrain Model for Costa Rica by reducing the Vegetation Bias from NASADEM based on SRTM data. Various global models were used to represent vegetation, and four analytical VB models based on canopy heights and density were evaluated and validated. Results showed that the differences between CRDTM2020 and bare-earth elevations were smaller compared to other global DEMs.
A large percentage of the Costa Rican territory is covered with high evergreen forests. In order to compute a 1 '' Bare-Earth Digital Terrain Model (DTM) for Costa Rica CRDTM2020, stochastic Vegetation Bias (VB) was reduced from the 1 '' NASADEM, Digital Elevation Model (DEM) based on the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) data. Several global models such as: canopy heights from the Global Forest Canopy Height 2019 model, canopy heights for the year 2000 from the Forest Canopy Height Map, and canopy density from the Global Forest Change model 2000 to 2019, were used to represent the vegetation in the year of SRTM data collection. Four analytical VB models based on canopy heights and canopy density were evaluated and validated using bare-earth observations and canopy heights from the Laser Vegetation Imaging Sensor (LVIS) surveys from 1998, 2005, and 2019 and a levelling dataset. The results show that differences between CRDTM2020 and bare-earth elevations from LVIS2019 in terms of the mean, median, standard deviation, and median absolute difference (0.9, 0.8, 7.9 and 3.7 m, respectively) are smaller than for any other of the nine evaluated global DEMs.

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