↓ Skip to main content

Impact of data model and point density on aboveground forest biomass estimation from airborne LiDAR

Overview of attention for article published in Carbon Balance and Management, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impact of data model and point density on aboveground forest biomass estimation from airborne LiDAR
Published in
Carbon Balance and Management, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13021-017-0073-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mariano Garcia, Sassan Saatchi, Antonio Ferraz, Carlos Alberto Silva, Susan Ustin, Alexander Koltunov, Heiko Balzter

Abstract

Accurate estimation of aboveground forest biomass (AGB) and its dynamics is of paramount importance in understanding the role of forest in the carbon cycle and the effective implementation of climate change mitigation policies. LiDAR is currently the most accurate technology for AGB estimation. LiDAR metrics can be derived from the 3D point cloud (echo-based) or from the canopy height model (CHM). Different sensors and survey configurations can affect the metrics derived from the LiDAR data. We evaluate the ability of the metrics derived from the echo-based and CHM data models to estimate AGB in three different biomes, as well as the impact of point density on the metrics derived from them. Our results show that differences among metrics derived at different point densities were significantly different from zero, with a larger impact on CHM-based than echo-based metrics, particularly when the point density was reduced to 1 point m(-2). Both data models-echo-based and CHM-performed similarly well in estimating AGB at the three study sites. For the temperate forest in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, California, USA, R(2) ranged from 0.79 to 0.8 and RMSE (relRMSE) from 69.69 (35.59%) to 70.71 (36.12%) Mg ha(-1) for the echo-based model and from 0.76 to 0.78 and 73.84 (37.72%) to 128.20 (65.49%) Mg ha(-1) for the CHM-based model. For the moist tropical forest on Barro Colorado Island, Panama, the models gave R(2) ranging between 0.70 and 0.71 and RMSE between 30.08 (12.36%) and 30.32 (12.46) Mg ha(-1) [between 0.69-0.70 and 30.42 (12.50%) and 61.30 (25.19%) Mg ha(-1)] for the echo-based [CHM-based] models. Finally, for the Atlantic forest in the Sierra do Mar, Brazil, R(2) was between 0.58-0.69 and RMSE between 37.73 (8.67%) and 39.77 (9.14%) Mg ha(-1) for the echo-based model, whereas for the CHM R(2) was between 0.37-0.45 and RMSE between 45.43 (10.44%) and 67.23 (15.45%) Mg ha(-1). Metrics derived from the CHM show a higher dependence on point density than metrics derived from the echo-based data model. Despite the median of the differences between metrics derived at different point densities differing significantly from zero, the mean change was close to zero and smaller than the standard deviation except for very low point densities (1 point m(-2)). The application of calibrated models to estimate AGB on metrics derived from thinned datasets resulted in less than 5% error when metrics were derived from the echo-based model. For CHM-based metrics, the same level of error was obtained for point densities higher than 5 points m(-2). The fact that reducing point density does not introduce significant errors in AGB estimates is important for biomass monitoring and for an effective implementation of climate change mitigation policies such as REDD + due to its implications for the costs of data acquisition. Both data models showed similar capability to estimate AGB when point density was greater than or equal to 5 point m(-2).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 119 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 16%
Researcher 19 16%
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 9 8%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 27 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 41 34%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 17 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 10%
Engineering 8 7%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 33 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,331,382
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Carbon Balance and Management
#156
of 236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,665
of 454,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Carbon Balance and Management
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 454,358 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.