CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 112

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The impact of geolocation uncertainty on GEDI tropical forest canopy height estimation and change monitoring

Roy, David P., Kashongwe, Herve B., Armston, John·2021·Science of Remote Sensing
DOI 10.1016/j.srs.2021.100024
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) LiDAR provides new spaceborne vegetation canopy structural information including relative canopy height products defined with respect to 25 m diameter footprints. The GEDI geolocation requirement is that each 25 m footprint center is horizontally georeferenced to within 10 m (1σ), assuming normally distributed geolocation errors with a 0 m mean and a 10 m standard deviation. The impact of this geolocation uncertainty on the reliability of forest canopy height estimation is examined considering Airborne Laser scanner (ALS) and GEDI data acquired in 2014 and 2019 respectively. A total of 445 GEDI footprints acquired over 2000 ha of unforested and tropical secondary forest in the western Democratic Republic of the Congo with vegetation heights ranging from 1 m to 42 m are considered. Airborne true color 10 cm imagery and an ALS derived canopy height model are examined to contextualize the results. GEDI waveforms are simulated from the ALS data at the reported locations of the GEDI footprints and used to derive h ˆ 95 , h ˆ 85 , h ˆ 75 relative heights that define the canopy height relative to the ground below which 95%, 85% and 75% of the simulated cumulative waveform energy is returned. A Monte Carlo simulation is undertaken, moving the centers of each GEDI footprint with 300 randomly generated position errors modelled using the GEDI geolocation uncertainty (0 m mean, 10 m standard deviation), and each time simulating the GEDI…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.srs.2021.100024

Cites

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 70

  1. Avissar, 2005, Global hydroclimatological teleconnections resulting from tropical deforestation, J. Hydrometeorol., 6, 134, 10.1175/JHM406.1 · DOI
  2. Beck, 2020, Global Ecosystem dynamics investigation (GEDI) level 02 user guide. Document version 1.0, january 2020, U.S. Geological Survey, Earth Resources Observation and Science Center
  3. Beck, 2021, Global Ecosystem dynamics investigation (GEDI) level 02 user guide. Document version 2.0, April 2021, U.S. Geological Survey, Earth Resources Observation and Science Center
  4. Blair, 1999, Modeling laser altimeter return waveforms over complex vegetation using high‐resolution elevation data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 2509, 10.1029/1999GL010484 · DOI
  5. Boucher, 2020, Detecting change in forest structure with simulated GEDI lidar waveforms: a case study of the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (HWA; Adelges tsugae) infestation, Rem. Sens., 12, 1304, 10.3390/rs12081304 · DOI
  6. Bustamante, 2016, Toward an integrated monitoring framework to assess the effects of tropical forest degradation and recovery on carbon stocks and biodiversity, Global Change Biol., 22, 92, 10.1111/gcb.13087 · DOI
  7. Bwangoy, 2012, Identifying nascent wetland forest conversion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Wetl. Ecol. Manag., 21, 29, 10.1007/s11273-012-9277-z · DOI
  8. Bwangoy, 2010, Wetland mapping in the Congo Basin using optical and radar remotely sensed data and derived topographical indices, Rem. Sens. Environ., 114, 73, 10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.004 · DOI
  9. Calders, 2020, Terrestrial laser scanning in forest ecology: expanding the horizon, Rem. Sens. Environ., 251, 10.1016/j.rse.2020.112102 · DOI
  10. Cole, 2014, Recovery and resilience of tropical forests after disturbance, Nat. Commun., 5, 1, 10.1038/ncomms4906 · DOI
  11. Curran, 1998, Geostatistics and remote sensing, Prog. Phys. Geogr., 22, 61, 10.1177/030913339802200103 · DOI
  12. Dobrinić, 2018, Horizontal accuracy assessment of PlanetScope, RapidEye and Worldview-2 satellite imagery, International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference: SGEM, 18, 129
  13. Dubayah, 2010, Estimation of tropical forest height and biomass dynamics using lidar remote sensing at La Selva, Costa Rica, J. Geophys. Res.: Biogeosciences, 115, 10.1029/2009JG000933 · DOI
  14. Dubayah, 2020, Online Everywhere, December, 1–17
  15. Dubayah, 2020, The global Ecosystem dynamics investigation: high-resolution laser ranging of the earth's forests and topography, Science of Remote Sensing, 1, 10.1016/j.srs.2020.100002 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Duncanson, 2020, Biomass estimation from simulated GEDI, ICESat-2 and NISAR across environmental gradients in Sonoma County, California, Rem. Sens. Environ., 242, 10.1016/j.rse.2020.111779 · DOI
  17. Duncanson, 2018, Monitoring individual tree‐based change with airborne lidar, Ecology and Evolution, 8, 5079, 10.1002/ece3.4075 · DOI
  18. Drake, 2002, Sensitivity of large-footprint lidar to canopy structure and biomass in a neotropical rainforest, Rem. Sens. Environ., 81, 378, 10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00013-5 · DOI
  19. Frazer, 2011, Simulated impact of sample plot size and co-registration error on the accuracy and uncertainty of LiDAR-derived estimates of forest stand biomass, Rem. Sens. Environ., 115, 636, 10.1016/j.rse.2010.10.008 · DOI
  20. Giam, 2017, Global biodiversity loss from tropical deforestation, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am., 114, 5775, 10.1073/pnas.1706264114 · DOI
  21. Gobakken, 2009, Assessing effects of positioning errors and sample plot size on biophysical stand properties derived from airborne laser scanner data, Can. J. For. Res., 39, 1036, 10.1139/X09-025 · DOI
  22. Hancock, 2019, The GEDI simulator: a large‐footprint waveform lidar simulator for calibration and validation of spaceborne missions, Earth and Space Science, 6, 294, 10.1029/2018EA000506 · DOI
  23. Harris, 2021, Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes, Nat. Clim. Change, 1
  24. Hu, 2014, Improving the efficiency and accuracy of individual tree crown delineation from high-density LiDAR data, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 26, 145
  25. Huang, 2013, Mapping biomass change after forest disturbance: Applying LiDAR footprint-derived models at key map scales, Rem. Sens. Environ., 134, 319, 10.1016/j.rse.2013.03.017 · DOI
  26. Huang, 2021, Characterization of PlanetScope-0 PlanetScope-1 surface reflectance and normalized difference vegetation index continuity, Science of Remote Sensing, 3, 10.1016/j.srs.2021.100014 · DOI
  27. Hubau, 2019, The persistence of carbon in the African forest understory, Nature Plants, 5, 133, 10.1038/s41477-018-0316-5 · DOI
  28. Hubau, 2020, Asynchronous carbon sink saturation in African and Amazonian tropical forests, Nature, 579, 80, 10.1038/s41586-020-2035-0 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Kashongwe, 2020, Democratic republic of the Congo tropical forest canopy height and aboveground biomass estimation with landsat-8 operational land imager (OLI) and airborne LiDAR data: the effect of seasonal Landsat image selection, Rem. Sens., 12, 1360, 10.3390/rs12091360 · DOI
  30. Kearsley, 2017, Model performance of tree height-diameter relationships in the central Congo Basin, Ann. For. Sci., 74, 1, 10.1007/s13595-016-0611-0 · DOI
  31. Lawrence, 2015, Effects of tropical deforestation on climate and agriculture, Nat. Clim. Change, 5, 27, 10.1038/nclimate2430 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Lefsky, 2010, A global forest canopy height map from the moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer and the geoscience laser altimeter system, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, 10.1029/2010GL043622 · DOI
  33. Lewis, 2013, Above-ground biomass and structure of 260 African tropical forests, Phil. Trans. Biol. Sci., 368, 10.1098/rstb.2012.0295 · DOI
  34. Li, 2020, Sharpening the sentinel-2 10 and 20 m bands to PlanetScope-0 3 m resolution, Rem. Sens., 12, 2406, 10.3390/rs12152406 · DOI
  35. Los, 2012, Vegetation height and cover fraction between 60 S and 60 N from ICESat GLAS data, Geosci. Model Dev. (GMD), 5, 413, 10.5194/gmd-5-413-2012 · DOI
  36. Marinelli, 2018, A novel approach to 3-D change detection in multitemporal LiDAR data acquired in forest areas, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Rem. Sens., 56, 3030, 10.1109/TGRS.2018.2789660 · DOI
  37. Martínez Cano, 2020, Allometric constraints and competition enable the simulation of size structure and carbon fluxes in a dynamic vegetation model of tropical forests (LM3PPA‐TV), Global Change Biol., 26, 4478, 10.1111/gcb.15188 · DOI
  38. Matasci, 2018, Large-area mapping of Canadian boreal forest cover, height, biomass and other structural attributes using Landsat composites and lidar plots, Rem. Sens. Environ., 209, 90, 10.1016/j.rse.2017.12.020 · DOI
  39. Mayaux, 2000, Central African forest cover revisited: a multisatellite analysis, Rem. Sens. Environ., 71, 183, 10.1016/S0034-4257(99)00073-5 · DOI
  40. Molinario, 2015, Forest cover dynamics of shifting cultivation in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a remote sensing-based assessment for 2000–2010, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094009 · DOI
  41. Moreno, 1993, A method for accurate geometric correction of NOAA AVHRR HRPT data, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Rem. Sens., 31, 204, 10.1109/36.210461 · DOI
  42. Muller‐Landau, 2006, Testing metabolic ecology theory for allometric scaling of tree size, growth and mortality in tropical forests, Ecol. Lett., 9, 575, 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00904.x · DOI
  43. Ni-Meister, 2001, Modeling lidar waveforms in heterogeneous and discrete canopies, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Rem. Sens., 39, 1943, 10.1109/36.951085 · DOI
  44. Pascual, 2020, Using enhanced data co-registration to update Spanish National Forest Inventories (NFI) and to reduce training data under LiDAR-assisted inference, Int. J. Rem. Sens., 42, 126, 10.1080/01431161.2020.1813346 · DOI
  45. Pebesma, 2004, Multivariable geostatistics in S: the gstat package, Comput. Geosci., 30, 683, 10.1016/j.cageo.2004.03.012 · DOI
  46. Potapov, 2020, Mapping global forest canopy height through integration of GEDI and Landsat data, Rem. Sens. Environ., 253
  47. Requena Suarez, 2019, Estimating aboveground net biomass change for tropical and subtropical forests: refinement of IPCC default rates using forest plot data, Global Change Biol., 25, 3609, 10.1111/gcb.14767 · DOI
  48. Roy, 2000, The impact of misregistration upon composited wide field of view satellite data and implications for change detection, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Rem. Sens., 38, 2017, 10.1109/36.851783 · DOI
  49. Roy, 2016, Best practices for the reprojection and resampling of sentinel-2 multi spectral instrument level 1C data, Remote Sensing Letters, 7, 1023, 10.1080/2150704X.2016.1212419 · DOI
  50. Samba, 2007, Rainfall and temperature variations over Congo-Brazzaville between 1950 and 1998, Theor. Appl. Climatol., 91, 85
  51. Schneider, 2020, Towards mapping the diversity of canopy structure from space with GEDI, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 10.1088/1748-9326/ab9e99 · DOI
  52. Shapiro, 2016, Using fragmentation to assess degradation of forest edges in Democratic Republic of Congo, Carbon Bal. Manag., 11, 1
  53. Silva, 2018, Comparison of small-and large-footprint lidar characterization of tropical forest aboveground structure and biomass: a case study from central Gabon, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 11, 3512, 10.1109/JSTARS.2018.2816962 · DOI
  54. Silva, 2021, Fusing simulated GEDI, ICESat-2 and NISAR data for regional aboveground biomass mapping, Rem. Sens. Environ., 253, 10.1016/j.rse.2020.112234 · DOI
  55. Silva Junior, 2020, Persistent collapse of biomass in Amazonian forest edges following deforestation leads to unaccounted carbon losses, Science Advances, 6, 10.1126/sciadv.aaz8360 · DOI
  56. Simard, 2011, Mapping forest canopy height globally with spaceborne lidar, J. Geophys. Res.: Biogeosciences, 116, 10.1029/2011JG001708 · DOI
  57. Smith, 2020, Secondary forests offset less than 10% of deforestation‐mediated carbon emissions in the Brazilian Amazon, Global Change Biol., 26, 7006, 10.1111/gcb.15352 · DOI
  58. Smith, 2009, Use and misuse of the reduced major axis for line‐fitting, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.: The Official Publication of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 140, 476, 10.1002/ajpa.21090 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Souza, 2005, Multitemporal analysis of degraded forests in the southern Brazilian Amazon, Earth Interact., 9, 1, 10.1175/EI132.1 · DOI
  60. Storey, 2016, A note on the temporary misregistration of landsat-8 operational land imager (OLI) and sentinel-2 multi spectral instrument (MSI) imagery, Rem. Sens. Environ., 186, 121, 10.1016/j.rse.2016.08.025 · DOI
  61. Tesfamichael, 2009, A semi-variogram approach for estimating stems per hectare in Eucalyptus grandis plantations using discrete-return lidar height data, For. Ecol. Manag., 258, 1188, 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.06.016 · DOI
  62. Townshend, 1992, The impact of misregistration on change detection, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Rem. Sens., 30, 1054, 10.1109/36.175340 · DOI
  63. Tsui, 2013, Integrating airborne LiDAR and space-borne radar via multivariate kriging to estimate above-ground biomass, Rem. Sens. Environ., 139, 340, 10.1016/j.rse.2013.08.012 · DOI
  64. Wolfe, 1998, MODIS land data storage, gridding, and compositing methodology: Level 2 grid, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Rem. Sens., 36, 1324, 10.1109/36.701082 · DOI
  65. Wolfe, 2002, Achieving sub-pixel geolocation accuracy in support of MODIS land science, Rem. Sens. Environ., 83, 31, 10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00085-8 · DOI
  66. Wulder, 2012, Lidar sampling for large-area forest characterization: a review, Rem. Sens. Environ., 121, 196, 10.1016/j.rse.2012.02.001 · DOI
  67. Xu, 2017, Spatial distribution of carbon stored in forests of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sci. Rep., 7, 1
  68. Yan, 2021, Improving Landsat Multispectral Scanner (MSS) geolocation by least-squares-adjustment based time-series co-registration, Rem. Sens. Environ., 252, 10.1016/j.rse.2020.112181 · DOI
  69. Zhao, 2009, Lidar remote sensing of forest biomass: a scale-invariant estimation approach using airborne lasers, Rem. Sens. Environ., 113, 182, 10.1016/j.rse.2008.09.009 · DOI
  70. Zhao, 2018, Utility of multitemporal lidar for forest and carbon monitoring: tree growth, biomass dynamics, and carbon flux, Rem. Sens. Environ., 204, 883, 10.1016/j.rse.2017.09.007 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Roy, D. P., Kashongwe, H. B., & Armston, J.
ORCID
Roy, David P.
Venue
Science of Remote Sensing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-12
Volume
4
Pages
100024
ISSN
2666-0172
DOI
10.1016/j.srs.2021.100024
Cited by
112
References
0
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • University of Maryland
  • Michigan State University
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (15AA03C)

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