Sort:
Open Access Research Issue
Mapping aboveground biomass and its prediction uncertainty using LiDAR and field data, accounting for tree-level allometric and LiDAR model errors
Forest Ecosystems 2020, 7 (3): 43
Published: 03 July 2020
Downloads:7
Background

The increasing availability of remotely sensed data has recently challenged the traditional way of performing forest inventories, and induced an interest in model-based inference. Like traditional design-based inference, model-based inference allows for regional estimates of totals and means, but in addition for wall-to-wall mapping of forest characteristics. Recently Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)-based maps of forest attributes have been developed in many countries and been well received by users due to their accurate spatial representation of forest resources. However, the correspondence between such mapping and model-based inference is seldom appreciated. In this study we applied hierarchical model-based inference to produce aboveground biomass maps as well as maps of the corresponding prediction uncertainties with the same spatial resolution. Further, an estimator of mean biomass at regional level, and its uncertainty, was developed to demonstrate how mapping and regional level assessment can be combined within the framework of model-based inference.

Results

Through a new version of hierarchical model-based estimation, allowing models to be nonlinear, we accounted for uncertainties in both the individual tree-level biomass models and the models linking plot level biomass predictions with LiDAR metrics. In a 5005 km 2 large study area in south-central Sweden the predicted aboveground biomass at the level of 18 m ×18 m map units was found to range between 9 and 447 Mg· ha −1. The corresponding root mean square errors ranged between 10 and 162 Mg· ha −1. For the entire study region, the mean aboveground biomass was 55 Mg· ha −1 and the corresponding relative root mean square error 8%. At this level 75% of the mean square error was due to the uncertainty associated with tree-level models.

Conclusions

Through the proposed method it is possible to link mapping and estimation within the framework of model-based inference. Uncertainties in both tree-level biomass models and models linking plot level biomass with LiDAR data are accounted for, both for the uncertainty maps and the overall estimates. The development of hierarchical model-based inference to handle nonlinear models was an important prerequisite for the study.

Open Access Discussion Issue
Use of models in large-area forest surveys: comparing model-assisted, model-based and hybrid estimation
Forest Ecosystems 2016, 3 (2): 5
Published: 18 February 2016
Downloads:6

This paper focuses on the use of models for increasing the precision of estimators in large-area forest surveys. It is motivated by the increasing availability of remotely sensed data, which facilitates the development of models predicting the variables of interest in forest surveys. We present, review and compare three different estimation frameworks where models play a core role: model-assisted, model-based, and hybrid estimation. The first two are well known, whereas the third has only recently been introduced in forest surveys. Hybrid inference mixes design-based and model-based inference, since it relies on a probability sample of auxiliary data and a model predicting the target variable from the auxiliary data..We review studies on large-area forest surveys based on model-assisted, model-based, and hybrid estimation, and discuss advantages and disadvantages of the approaches. We conclude that no general recommendations can be made about whether model-assisted, model-based, or hybrid estimation should be preferred. The choice depends on the objective of the survey and the possibilities to acquire appropriate field and remotely sensed data. We also conclude that modelling approaches can only be successfully applied for estimating target variables such as growing stock volume or biomass, which are adequately related to commonly available remotely sensed data, and thus purely field based surveys remain important for several important forest parameters.

total 2