Back

Robust characterization of forest structure from airborne laser scanning - a systematic assessment and sample workflow for ecologists

Fischer, F. J.; Jackson, T. D.; Vincent, G.; Jucker, T.

2024-03-30 ecology
10.1101/2024.03.27.586702 bioRxiv
Show abstract

O_LIForests display tremendous structural diversity, shaping carbon cycling, microclimates, and terrestrial habitats. One of the most common tools for forest structure assessments are canopy height models (CHMs): maps of canopy height obtained at high resolution and large scale from airborne laser scanning (ALS). CHMs can be computed in many ways, but little is known about the robustness of different CHM algorithms and how they affect ecological analyses. C_LIO_LIHere, we used high-quality ALS data from nine sites in Australia, ranging from semi-arid shrublands to 90-m tall Mountain Ash canopies, to comprehensively assess CHM algorithms. This included testing their sensitivity to point cloud degradation and quantifying the propagation of errors to derived metrics of canopy structure. C_LIO_LIWe found that CHM algorithms varied widely both in their height predictions (differences up to 10 m, or 60% of canopy height) and in their sensitivity to point cloud characteristics (biases of up to [~]5 m or 40% of canopy height). Impacts of point cloud properties on CHM-derived metrics varied, from robust inference for height percentiles, to considerable errors in aboveground biomass estimates ([~]50 Mg ha-1, or 10% of total), and high volatility in metrics that quantify spatial associations in canopies (e.g., gaps or spatial autocorrelation). In some cases, biases exceeded ecological variation across sites by a factor of 2. However, we also found that two CHM algorithms - a variation on a "spikefree" algorithm that adapts to local pulse densities and a simple Delaunay triangulation of first returns - allowed for robust canopy characterization and should thus create a secure foundation for ecological comparisons in space and time. C_LIO_LICanopy height models are a widely used tool in ecology, but their derivation is not trivial. Our study provides a best-practice guideline and a sample workflow to create robust CHMs and minimize biases and uncertainty in downstream analyses. In doing so we pave the way for global-scale comparisons of forest structural complexity from airborne laser scanning. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.