CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 126

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantifying understory vegetation density using small-footprint airborne lidar

Campbell, Michael J., Dennison, Philip E., Hudak, Andrew T., Parham, Lucy M., Butler, Bret W.·2018·Remote Sensing of Environment
DOI 10.1016/j.rse.2018.06.023
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The ability to quantify understory vegetation structure in forested environments on a broad scale has the potential to greatly improve our understanding of wildlife habitats, nutrient cycling, wildland fire behavior, and wildland firefighter safety. Lidar data can be used to model understory vegetation density, but the accuracy of these models is impacted by factors such as the specific lidar metrics used as independent variables, overstory conditions such as density and height, and lidar pulse density. Few previous studies have examined how these factors affect estimation of understory density. In this study we compare two widely-used lidar-derived metrics, overall relative point density (ORD) and normalized relative point density (NRD) in an understory vertical stratum, for their respective abilities to accurately model understory vegetation density. We also use a bootstrapping analysis to examine how lidar pulse density, overstory vegetation density, and canopy height can affect the ability to characterize understory conditions. In doing so, we present a novel application of an automated field photo-based understory cover estimation technique as reference data for comparison to lidar. Our results highlight that NRD is a far superior metric for characterizing understory density than ORD (R2NRD = 0.44 vs. R2ORD = 0.14). In addition, we found that pulse density had the strongest positive effect on predictive power, suggesting that as pulse density increases, the ability to ac…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.rse.2018.06.023

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 81

  1. Ahmed, 2015, Characterizing stand-level forest canopy cover and height using Landsat time series, samples of airborne LiDAR, and the Random Forest algorithm, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 101, 89, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.11.007 · DOI
  2. Alexander, 2013, Airborne laser scanner (LiDAR) proxies for understory light conditions, Remote Sens. Environ., 134, 152, 10.1016/j.rse.2013.02.028 · DOI
  3. Bartemucci, 2006, Overstory influences on light attenuation patterns and understory plant community diversity and composition in southern boreal forests of Quebec, Can. J. For. Res., 36, 2065, 10.1139/x06-088 · DOI
  4. Ben-Arie, 2009, Development of a pit filling algorithm for LiDAR canopy height models, Comput. Geosci., 35, 1940, 10.1016/j.cageo.2009.02.003 · DOI
  5. Booth, 2005, Detection-threshold calibration and other factors influencing digital measurements of ground cover, Rangel. Ecol. Manag., 58, 598, 10.2111/05-060R1.1 · DOI
  6. Boyd, 2005, A visual obstruction technique for photo monitoring of willow clumps, Rangel. Ecol. Manag., 58, 434, 10.2111/1551-5028(2005)058[0434:AVOTFP]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  7. Brandtberg, 2007, Classifying individual tree species under leaf-off and leaf-on conditions using airborne lidar, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 61, 325, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2006.10.006 · DOI
  8. Bright, 2013, Predicting live and dead tree basal area of bark beetle affected forests from discrete-return lidar, Can. J. Remote. Sens., 39, S99, 10.5589/m13-027 · DOI
  9. Campbell, 2017, Safe separation distance score: a new metric for evaluating wildland firefighter safety zones using lidar, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., 31, 1448, 10.1080/13658816.2016.1270453 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Carlyle, 2010, The use of digital photos to assess visual cover for wildlife in rangelands, J. Environ. Manag., 91, 1366, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.02.018 · DOI
  11. Chasmer, 2006, Investigating laser pulse penetration through a conifer canopy by integrating airborne and terrestrial lidar, Can. J. Remote. Sens., 32, 116, 10.5589/m06-011 · DOI
  12. Chen, 2007, Estimating basal area and stem volume for individual trees from lidar data, Photogramm. Eng. Remote. Sens., 73, 1355, 10.14358/PERS.73.12.1355 · DOI
  13. Clark, 2004, Small-footprint lidar estimation of sub-canopy elevation and tree height in a tropical rain forest landscape, Remote Sens. Environ., 91, 68, 10.1016/j.rse.2004.02.008 · DOI
  14. Clark, 2011, Estimation of tropical rain forest aboveground biomass with small-footprint lidar and hyperspectral sensors, Remote Sens. Environ., 115, 2931, 10.1016/j.rse.2010.08.029 · DOI
  15. Collins, 2001, Estimation of horizontal cover, J. Range Manag., 54, 67, 10.2307/4003530 · DOI
  16. Dalponte, 2011, A system for the estimation of single-tree stem diameter and volume using multireturn LIDAR data, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 49, 2479, 10.1109/TGRS.2011.2107744 · DOI
  17. Drake, 2002, Estimation of tropical forest structural characteristics using large-footprint lidar, Remote Sens. Environ., 79, 305, 10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00281-4 · DOI
  18. Duebbert, 1976, Duck nesting in fields of undisturbed grass-legume cover, J. Wildl. Manag., 40, 39, 10.2307/3800154 · DOI
  19. Eskelson, 2011, Estimating riparian understory vegetation cover with beta regression and copula models, For. Sci., 57, 212
  20. Estornell, 2011, Estimation of shrub biomass by airborne LiDAR data in small forest stands, For. Ecol. Manag., 262, 1697, 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.07.026 · DOI
  21. Evans, 2009, Discrete return lidar in natural resources: recommendations for project planning, data processing, and deliverables, Remote Sens., 1, 776, 10.3390/rs1040776 · DOI
  22. Falkowski, 2008, The influence of conifer forest canopy cover on the accuracy of two individual tree measurement algorithms using lidar data, Can. J. Remote. Sens., 34, S338, 10.5589/m08-055 · DOI
  23. Falkowski, 2010, Landscape-scale parameterization of a tree-level forest growth model: a k-nearest neighbor imputation approach incorporating LiDAR data, Can. J. For. Res., 40, 184, 10.1139/X09-183 · DOI
  24. Griffith, 1988, Two devices for estimating foliage density and deer hiding cover, Wildl. Soc. Bull., 1973–2006, 206
  25. Hamraz, 2017, Forest understory trees can be segmented accurately within sufficiently dense airborne laser scanning point clouds, Sci. Rep., 7
  26. Hill, 2009, Mapping the understorey of deciduous woodland from leaf-on and leaf-off airborne LiDAR data: a case study in lowland Britain, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 64, 223, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2008.12.004 · DOI
  27. Holmgren, 2003, Simulating the effects of lidar scanning angle for estimation of mean tree height and canopy closure, Can. J. Remote. Sens., 29, 623, 10.5589/m03-030 · DOI
  28. Hopkinson, 2006, Towards a universal lidar canopy height indicator, Can. J. Remote. Sens., 32, 139, 10.5589/m06-006 · DOI
  29. Hudak, 2006, Regression modeling and mapping of coniferous forest basal area and tree density from discrete-return lidar and multispectral satellite data, Can. J. Remote. Sens., 32, 126, 10.5589/m06-007 · DOI
  30. Hudak, 2008, Nearest neighbor imputation of species-level, plot-scale forest structure attributes from LiDAR data, Remote Sens. Environ., 112, 2232, 10.1016/j.rse.2007.10.009 · DOI
  31. Jakubowksi, 2013, Predicting surface fuel models and fuel metrics using lidar and CIR imagery in a dense mixed conifer forest, Photogramm. Eng. Remote. Sens., 79, 37, 10.14358/PERS.79.1.37 · DOI
  32. Jones, 1968, A board to measure cover used by prairie grouse, J. Wildl. Manag., 32, 28, 10.2307/3798233 · DOI
  33. Jorgensen, 2013, Choosing a DIVA: a comparison of emerging digital imagery vegetation analysis techniques, Appl. Veg. Sci., 16, 552, 10.1111/avsc.12037 · DOI
  34. Kerns, 2004, Evaluation and prediction of shrub cover in coastal Oregon forests (USA), Ecol. Indic., 4, 83, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2003.12.002 · DOI
  35. Khosravipour, 2015, Effect of slope on treetop detection using a LiDAR Canopy Height Model, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 104, 44, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.02.013 · DOI
  36. Korhonen, 2011, Airborne discrete-return LIDAR data in the estimation of vertical canopy cover, angular canopy closure and leaf area index, Remote Sens. Environ., 115, 1065, 10.1016/j.rse.2010.12.011 · DOI
  37. Korpela, 2010, Tree species classification using airborne LiDAR - effects of stand and tree parameters, downsizing of training set, intensity normalization, and sensor type, Silva Fennica, 44, 319, 10.14214/sf.156 · DOI
  38. Korpela, 2012, Understory trees in airborne LiDAR data — selective mapping due to transmission losses and echo-triggering mechanisms, Remote Sens. Environ., 119, 92, 10.1016/j.rse.2011.12.011 · DOI
  39. Kramer, 2016, Estimating ladder fuels: a new approach combining field photography with LiDAR, Remote Sens., 8, 766, 10.3390/rs8090766 · DOI
  40. Kükenbrink, 2017, Quantification of hidden canopy volume of airborne laser scanning data using a voxel traversal algorithm, Remote Sens. Environ., 194, 424, 10.1016/j.rse.2016.10.023 · DOI
  41. Latifi, 2010, Non-parametric prediction and mapping of standing timber volume and biomass in a temperate forest: application of multiple optical/LiDAR-derived predictors, Forestry, 83, 395, 10.1093/forestry/cpq022 · DOI
  42. Lefsky, 1999, Surface lidar remote sensing of basal area and biomass in deciduous forests of Eastern Maryland, USA, Remote Sens. Environ., 67, 83, 10.1016/S0034-4257(98)00071-6 · DOI
  43. Limb, 2007, Digital photography: reduced investigator variation in visual obstruction measurements for southern tallgrass prairie, Rangel. Ecol. Manag., 60, 548, 10.2111/1551-5028(2007)60[548:DPRIVI]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  44. Maltamo, 2004, The accuracy of estimating individual tree variables with airborne laser scanning in a boreal nature reserve, Can. J. For. Res., 34, 1791, 10.1139/x04-055 · DOI
  45. Maltamo, 2005, Identifying and quantifying structural characteristics of heterogeneous boreal forests using laser scanner data, For. Ecol. Manag., 216, 41, 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.034 · DOI
  46. Marsden, 2002, A technique for measuring the density and complexity of understorey vegetation in tropical forests, For. Ecol. Manag., 165, 117, 10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00653-3 · DOI
  47. Martinuzzi, 2009, Mapping snags and understory shrubs for a LiDAR-based assessment of wildlife habitat suitability, Remote Sens. Environ., 113, 2533, 10.1016/j.rse.2009.07.002 · DOI
  48. Meng, 2010, Ground filtering algorithms for airborne LiDAR Data: a review of critical issues, Remote Sens., 2, 833, 10.3390/rs2030833 · DOI
  49. Minasny, 2006, A conditioned Latin hypercube method for sampling in the presence of ancillary information, Comput. Geosci., 32, 1378, 10.1016/j.cageo.2005.12.009 · DOI
  50. Morrison, 2016, Observer error in vegetation surveys: a review, J. Plant Ecol., 9, 367, 10.1093/jpe/rtv077 · DOI
  51. Morsdorf, 2010, Discrimination of vegetation strata in a multi-layered Mediterranean forest ecosystem using height and intensity information derived from airborne laser scanning, Remote Sens. Environ., 114, 1403, 10.1016/j.rse.2010.01.023 · DOI
  52. Musil, 1994, Nesting and summer habitat use by translocated sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in Central Idaho, The Great Basin Naturalist, 54, 228
  53. Mutlu, 2008, Mapping surface fuel models using lidar and multispectral data fusion for fire behavior, Remote Sens. Environ., 112, 274, 10.1016/j.rse.2007.05.005 · DOI
  54. Næsset, 2002, Predicting forest stand characteristics with airborne scanning laser using a practical two-stage procedure and field data, Remote Sens. Environ., 80, 88, 10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00290-5 · DOI
  55. Nijland, 2014, Fine-spatial scale predictions of understory species using climate- and LiDAR-derived terrain and canopy metrics, JARS, JARSC4, 8
  56. Nudds, 1977, Quantifying the vegetative structure of wildlife cover, Wildl. Soc. Bull., 1973–2006, 113
  57. Penner, 2013, Parametric vs. nonparametric LiDAR models for operational forest inventory in boreal Ontario, Can. J. Remote. Sens., 39, 426
  58. Pesonen, 2008, Airborne laser scanning-based prediction of coarse woody debris volumes in a conservation area, For. Ecol. Manag., 255, 3288, 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.02.017 · DOI
  59. Popescu, 2002, Estimating plot-level tree heights with lidar: local filtering with a canopy-height based variable window size, Comput. Electron. Agric., 37, 71, 10.1016/S0168-1699(02)00121-7 · DOI
  60. Reutebuch, 2003, Accuracy of a high-resolution lidar terrain model under a conifer forest canopy, Can. J. Remote. Sens., 29, 527, 10.5589/m03-022 · DOI
  61. Riaño, 2003, Modeling airborne laser scanning data for the spatial generation of critical forest parameters in fire behavior modeling, Remote Sens. Environ., 86, 177, 10.1016/S0034-4257(03)00098-1 · DOI
  62. Riaño, 2004, Estimation of leaf area index and covered ground from airborne laser scanner (Lidar) in two contrasting forests, Agric. For. Meteorol., 124, 269, 10.1016/j.agrformet.2004.02.005 · DOI
  63. Richardson, 2011, Strengths and limitations of assessing forest density and spatial configuration with aerial LiDAR, Remote Sens. Environ., 115, 2640, 10.1016/j.rse.2011.05.020 · DOI
  64. Richardson, 2009, Modeling approaches to estimate effective leaf area index from aerial discrete-return LIDAR, Agric. For. Meteorol., 149, 1152, 10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.02.007 · DOI
  65. Robel, 1970, Relationships between visual obstruction measurements and weight of grassland vegetation, J. Range Manag., 23, 295, 10.2307/3896225 · DOI
  66. Sage, 2004, Impact of roe deer Capreolus capreolus browsing on understorey vegetation in small farm woodlands, Wildl. Biol., 10, 115, 10.2981/wlb.2004.016 · DOI
  67. Seielstad, 2003, Using airborne laser altimetry to determine fuel models for estimating fire behavior, J. For., 101, 10
  68. Singh, 2015, Detecting understory plant invasion in urban forests using LiDAR, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 38, 267
  69. Skowronski, 2007, Remotely sensed measurements of forest structure and fuel loads in the pinelands of New Jersey, Remote Sensing of Environment, The Application of Remote Sensing to Fire Research in the Eastern United States, 108, 123
  70. Smith, 2009, A cross-comparison of field, spectral, and lidar estimates of forest canopy cover, Can. J. Remote. Sens., 35, 447, 10.5589/m09-038 · DOI
  71. Stephens, 1998, Evaluation of the effects of silvicultural and fuels treatments on potential fire behaviour in Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests, For. Ecol. Manag., 105, 21, 10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00293-4 · DOI
  72. Su, 2006, Influence of vegetation, slope, and lidar sampling angle on DEM accuracy, Photogramm. Eng. Remote. Sens., 72, 1265, 10.14358/PERS.72.11.1265 · DOI
  73. Su, 2007, Characterization of diverse plant communities in aspen parkland rangeland using LiDAR data, Appl. Veg. Sci., 10, 407, 10.1111/j.1654-109X.2007.tb00440.x · DOI
  74. Suchar, 2010, Understory cover and biomass indices predictions for forest ecosystems of the r United States, Ecol. Indic., 10, 602, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.10.004 · DOI
  75. Takahashi, 2006, The penetration rate of laser pulses transmitted from a small-footprint airborne LiDAR: a case study in closed canopy, middle-aged pure sugi (Cryptomeria japonica D. Don) and hinoki cypress (Chamaecyparis obtusa Sieb. et Zucc.) stands in Japan, J. For. Res., 11, 117, 10.1007/s10310-005-0189-0 · DOI
  76. Tang, 2014, Deriving and validating Leaf Area Index (LAI) at multiple spatial scales through lidar remote sensing: a case study in Sierra National Forest, CA, Remote Sens. Environ., 143, 131, 10.1016/j.rse.2013.12.007 · DOI
  77. Vaglio Laurin, 2016, Above ground biomass and tree species richness estimation with airborne lidar in tropical Ghana forests, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 52, 371
  78. Wing, 2012, Prediction of understory vegetation cover with airborne lidar in an interior ponderosa pine forest, Remote Sens. Environ., 124, 730, 10.1016/j.rse.2012.06.024 · DOI · Paper page
  79. Winnard, 2013, Habitat use of a critically-endangered species in a predator-free but degraded reserve in Australia, Wildl. Biol., 19, 429, 10.2981/12-116 · DOI
  80. Wulder, 2013, Status and prospects for LiDAR remote sensing of forested ecosystems, Can. J. Remote. Sens., 39, S1, 10.5589/m13-051 · DOI
  81. Zhang, 2003, Monitoring vegetation phenology using MODIS, Remote Sens. Environ., 84, 471, 10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00135-9 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Campbell, M. J., Dennison, P. E., Hudak, A. T., Parham, L. M., & Butler, B. W.
Venue
Remote Sensing of Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
215
Pages
330-342
ISSN
0034-4257
DOI
10.1016/j.rse.2018.06.023
Cited by
126
References
2
Language
en
Licence
Funders
US Forest Service (14JV11221637123, 15CR11221637105)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review