Can airborne laser scanning assist in mapping and monitoring natural forests?

Forest Ecology and Management

Volumn 369, Issue , 2016, Pages 116-125

  Sverdrup Thygeson, Anne ^a   Ørka, Hans Ole ^a   Gobakken, Terje ^a   Næsset, Erik ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

Author keywords

Airborne laser scanning (ALS); Boreal forest; Forest structure; Near natural forest; Remote sensing; Spatial pattern

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEMS; LASER APPLICATIONS; MAPPING; REMOTE SENSING; SCANNING; SEPARATION; SURFACE ANALYSIS;

AIRBORNE LASER SCANNING; BOREAL FORESTS; FOREST STRUCTURE; NATURAL FORESTS; SPATIAL PATTERNS;

FORESTRY;

AGE STRUCTURE; BIODIVERSITY; BOREAL FOREST; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; FOREST MANAGEMENT; HABITAT STRUCTURE; KNOWLEDGE; LANDSCAPE; MAPPING METHOD; NATURALNESS; OLD-GROWTH FOREST; REMOTE SENSING; SELECTIVE LOGGING; SPATIAL ANALYSIS;

NORWAY;

EID: 84962602036     PISSN: 03781127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2016.03.035     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Axelsson P. DEM generation from laser scanner data using adaptive TIN models. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2000, 33:111-118.
2. Bartha D. Chances for a stand-level evaluation of the naturalness of forests. Allgemeine Forst und Jagdzeitung 2004, 175:8-13.
3. Bater C., Coops N., Gergel S., LeMay V., Collins D. Estimation of standing dead tree class distributions in northwest central forests using lidar remote sensing. Can. J. For. Res. 2009, 39:1080-1091.
4. Breiman L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45:5-32.
5. Calcagno, V., 2013. glmulti: Model selection and multimodel inference made easy.
6. Chen C., Liaw A., Breiman L. Using random forest to learn imbalanced data. Tech. Rep. 2004, 1-12. Dept. Statistics, Univ. California Berkeley.
7. Chirici, G., Malak, D.A., Eggers, J., Bastrup-Birk, A., den Herder, M., Lindner, M., Lombardi, F., Barbati, A., Marchetti, M., Zolli, C., 2014. Developing a forest naturalness indicator for Europe - concept and methodology for a high nature value forest indicator. EEA Technical Report No 13/2014.
8. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 1960, 20:37-46.
9. Crawley M.J. The R Book 2013, John Wiley & Sons.
10. Cutler D.R., Edwards T.C., Beard K.H., Cutler A., Hess K.T., Gibson J., Lawler J.J. Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology 2007, 88:2783-2792.
11. De'ath G. Boosted trees for ecological modeling and prediction. Ecology 2007, 88:243-251.
12. Eldegard K., Dirksen J.W., Ørka H.O., Halvorsen R., Næsset E., Gobakken T., Ohlson M. Modelling bird richness and bird species presence in a boreal forest reserve using airborne laser-scanning and aerial images. Bird Study 2014, 61:204-219.
13. Ene L., Næsset E., Gobakken T. Single tree detection in heterogeneous boreal forests using airborne laser scanning and area-based stem number estimates. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2012, 33:5171-5193.
14. Esseen P.A., Ehnström B., Ericson L., Sjöberg K. Boreal forests. Ecol. Bull. 1997, 46:16-47.
15. Falkowski M.J., Evans J.S., Martinuzzi S., Gessler P.G., Hudak A.T. Characterizing forest succession with lidar data: an evaluation for the inland northwest, USA. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113:946-956.
16. Foody G. The continuum of classification fuzziness in thematic mapping. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 1999, 65:443-451.
17. Foody G.M. Monitoring the magnitude of land-cover change around the southern limits of the Sahara. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2001, 67:841-848.
18. Frazer G.W., Magnussen S., Wulder M.A., Niemann K.O. Simulated impact of sample plot size and co-registration error on the accuracy and uncertainty of LiDAR-derived estimates of forest stand biomass. Remote Sens. Environ. 2011, 115:636-649.
19. Friedman J.H. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann. Stat. 2001, 29:1189-1232.
20. Gislason P.O., Benediktsson J.A., Sveinsson J.R. Random forests for land cover classification. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2006, 7:294-300.
21. Gobakken T., Næsset E. Assessing effects of laser point density, ground sampling intensity, and field sample plot size on biophysical stand properties derived from airborne laser scanner data. Can. J. For. Res.-Rev. Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere 2008, 38:1095-1109.
22. Goetz S., Steinberg D., Dubayah R., Blair B. Laser remote sensing of canopy habitat heterogeneity as a predictor of bird species richness in an eastern temperate forest, USA. Remote Sens. Environ. 2007, 108:254-263.
23. Hill R.A., Thomson A.G. Mapping woodland species composition and structure using airborne spectral and LiDAR data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2005, 26:3763-3779.
24. Hopkinson C., Chasmer L. Testing LiDAR models of fractional cover across multiple forest ecozones. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113:275-288.
25. Hosmer D.W., Hosmer T., le Cessie S., Lemeshow S. A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model. Stat. Med. 1997, 16:965-980.
26. Jönsson M.T., Fraver S., Jonsson B.G. Forest history and the development of old-growth characteristics in fragmented boreal forests. J. Veg. Sci. 2009, 20:91-106.
27. Kouki J., Hyvarinen E., Lappalainen H., Martikainen P., Simila M. Landscape context affects the success of habitat restoration: large-scale colonization patterns of saproxylic and fire-associated species in boreal forests. Divers. Distrib. 2012, 18:348-355.
28. Kraus K., Pfeifer N. Determination of terrain models in wooded areas with airborne laser scanner data. ISPRS-J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 1998, 53:193-203.
29. Kuuluvainen T. Forest management and biodiversity conservation based on natural ecosystem dynamics in northern Europe: the complexity challenge. Ambio 2009, 38:309-315.
30. Latifi H., Heurich M., Hartig F., Müller J., Krzystek P., Jehl H., Dech S. Estimating over- and understorey canopy density of temperate mixed stands by airborne LiDAR data. Forestry 2016, 89:69-81.
31. Liaw A., Wiener M. Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2002, 2:18-22.
32. Lie M.H., Josefsson T., Storaunet K.O., Ohlson M. A refined view on the "Green lie": forest structure and composition succeeding early twentieth century selective logging in SE Norway. Scand. J. For. Res. 2012, 27:270-284.
33. Lindenmayer D.B., Franklin J.F., Fischer J. General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 131:433-445.
34. Magnusson M., Olsson J., Hedenås H. Red-listed wood-inhabiting fungi in natural and managed forest landscapes adjacent to the timberline in central Sweden. Scand. J. For. Res. 2014, 29:455-465.
35. Maltamo M., Kallio E., Bollandsås O.M., Næsset E., Gobakken T., Pesonen A. Assessing dead wood by airborne laser scanning. Laser Scanner Applications in Forest and Environmental Sciences. Concepts and Case Studies. Managing Forest Ecosystems 2014, vol. 27. Springer.
36. Forestry Applications of Airborne Laser Scanning. Concepts and Case Studies. Managing Forest Ecosystems 2014, vol. 27. 10.1007/978-94-017-8663-8.
37. Maltamo M., Packalen P. Species-specific management inventory in Finland. Forestry Applications of Airborne Laser Scanning. Managing Forest Ecosystems 2014, 241-252. Springer, Netherlands.
38. Müller J., Vierling K.T. Assessing biodiversity by airborne laser scanning. Forestry Applications of Airborne Laser Scanning. Managing Forest Ecosystems 2014, 357-374. Springer, Netherlands. M. Maltamo, E. Naesset, J. Vauhkonen (Eds.).
39. Nagelkerke N.J.D. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 1991, 78:691-692.
40. Nelson T., Boots B., Wulder M., Feick R. Predicting forest age classes from high spatial resolution remotely sensed imagery using Voronoi polygon aggregation. GeoInformation 2004, 8:143-155.
41. Nelson T., Niemann K.O., Wulder M.A. Spatial statistical techniques for aggregating point objects extracted from spatial resolution remotely sensed imagery. J. Geogr. Syst. 2002, 4:423-433.
42. Nordén J., Penttilä R., Siitonen J., Tomppo E., Ovaskainen O. Specialist species of wood-inhabiting fungi struggle while generalists thrive in fragmented boreal forests. J. Ecol. 2013, 101:701-712.
43. Næsset E. Practical large-scale forest stand inventory using a small-footprint airborne scanning laser. Scand. J. For. Res. 2004, 19:164-179.
44. Næsset E. Airborne laser scanning as a method in operational forest inventory: status of accuracy assessments accomplished in Scandinavia. Scand. J. For. Res. 2007, 433-442.
45. Næsset E. Area-based inventory in norway-from innovation to an operational reality. Forestry Applications of Airborne Laser Scanning. Managing Forest Ecosystems 2014, 215-240. Springer. M. Maltamo, E. Naesset, J. Vauhkonen (Eds.).
46. Ohser J. On estimators for the reduced second moment measure of point processes. Mathematische Operationsforschung und Statistik, Series Statistics 1983, 14:63-71.
47. Otsu N. A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. Automatica 1979, 11:23-27.
48. Paillet Y., Berges L., Hjalten J., Odor P., Avon C., Bernhardt-Romermann M., Bijlsma R.J., De Bruyn L., Fuhr M., Grandin U., Kanka R., Lundin L., Luque S., Magura T., Matesanz S., Meszaros I., Sebastia M.T., Schmidt W., Standovar T., Tothmeresz B., Uotila A., Valladares F., Vellak K., Virtanen R. Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24:101-112.
49. Pearce J., Ferrier S. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecol. Model. 2000, 133:225-245.
50. Pike R.J., Wilson S.E. Elevation-relief ratio, hypsometric integral, and geomorphic area-altitude analysis. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 1971, 82:1079-1083.
51. Pirotti F., Grigolato S., Lingua E., Sitzia T., Tarolli P. Laser scanner applications in forest and environmental sciences. Italian J. Remote Sens.-Rivista Italiana Di Telerilevamento 2012, 44:109-123.
52. R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2015, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
53. Reutebuch S.E., McGaughey R.J., Andersen H.E., Carson W.W. Accuracy of a high-resolution LIDAR terrain model under a conifer forest canopy. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2003, 29:527-535.
54. Ridgeway, G., 2015. Greg ridgeway with contributions from others. gbm: Generalized Boosted Regression Models. R Package Version 2.1.1. <. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gbm.
55. Ripley B.D. Statistical Inference for Spatial Processes 1988, Cambridge University Press.
56. Shataeea S., Weinaker H., Babanejad M. Plot-level Forest volume estimation using airborne laser scanner and TM data, comparison of boosting and random forest tree regression algorithms. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2011, 7:68-73.
57. Siitonen J. Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forest as an example. Ecol. Bull. 2001, 49:11-41.
58. Solberg S., Næsset E., Bollandsås O.M. Single tree segmentation using airborne laser scanner data in a structurally heterogeneous spruce forest. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2006, 72:1369-1378.
59. Storaunet, K.O., Rolstad, J., 2015. Mengde og utvikling av død ved produktiv skog i Norge. Med basis i data fra Landsskogtakseringens 7. (1994-1998) og 10. takst (2010-2013). Norsk institutt for skog og landskap, Ås.
60. Storaunet K.O., Rolstad J., Gjerde I., Gundersen V.S. Historical logging, productivity, and structural characteristics of boreal coniferous forests in Norway. Silva Fennica 2005, 39:429-442.
61. Storaunet K.O., Rolstad J., Groven R. Reconstructing 100-150 years of logging history in coastal spruce forest (Picea abies) with special conservation values in central Norway. Scand. J. For. Res. 2000, 15:591-604.
62. Tomter, S.M., Dalen, L.S. (Eds.), 2014. Bærekraftig skogbruk i Norge. Report. Norsk institutt for skog og landskap, Ås.
63. Treitz P., Lim K., Woods M., Pitt D., Nesbitt D., Etheridge D. LiDAR sampling density for forest resource inventories in Ontario, Canada. Remote Sens. 2012, 4:830-848.
64. Ulyshen M.D. Arthropod vertical stratification in temperate deciduous forests: implications for conservation-oriented management. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 261:1479-1489.
65. Vandekerkhove K., De Keersmaeker L., Walleyn R., Kohler F., Crevecoeur L., Govaere L., Thomaes A., Verheyen K. Reappearance of old-growth elements in lowland woodlands in northern Belgium: do the associated species follow?. Silva Fennica 2011, 45:909-935.
66. Vauhkonen J., Ene L., Gupta S., Heinzel J., Holmgren J., Pitkänen J., Solberg S., Wang Y., Weinacker H., Hauglin K.M., Lien V., Packalén P., Gobakken T., Koch B., Næsset E., Tokola T., Maltamo M. Comparative testing of single-tree detection algorithms under different types of forest. Forestry 2012, 85:27-40.
67. Vehmas M., Packalen P., Maltamo M., Eerikainen K. Using airborne laser scanning data for detecting canopy gaps and their understory type in mature boreal forest. Ann. For. Sci. 2011, 68:825-835.
68. Vennesland, B., Hobbelstad, K., Bolkesjø, T., Baardsen, S., Lileng, J.K., Rolstad, J., 2006. Skogressursene i Norge 2006. Muligheter og aktuelle strategier for økt avvirkning, p. 94.
69. Watt M., Adams T., Gonzalez Aracil S., Marshall H., Watt P. The influence of LiDAR pulse density and plot size on the accuracy of New Zealand plantation stand volume equations. N.Z. J. For. Sci. 2013, 43:1-10.
70. Winter S. Forest naturalness assessment as a component of biodiversity monitoring and conservation management. Forestry 2012, 85:293-304.
71. Wulder M.A., White J.C., Bentz B., Alvarez M.F., Coops N.C. Estimating the probability of mountain pine beetle red-attack damage. Remote Sens. Environ. 2006, 101:150-166.
72. Yu X., Hyyppä J., Holopainen M., Vastaranta M. Comparison of area-based and individual tree-based methods for predicting plot-level forest attributes. Remote Sens. 2010, 2:1481-1495.
73. Zellweger F., Morsdorf F., Purves R.S., Braunisch V., Bollmann K. Improved methods for measuring forest landscape structure: LiDAR complements field-based habitat assessment. Biodivers. Conserv. 2013, 23:289-307.