Cited by 90

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Highly Local Model Calibration with a New GEDI LiDAR Asset on Google Earth Engine Reduces Landsat Forest Height Signal Saturation

Healey, Sean P., Yang, Zhiqiang, Gorelick, Noel, Ilyushchenko, Simon·2020·Remote Sensing

Abstract

While Landsat has proved to be effective for monitoring many elements of forest condition and change, the platform has well-documented limitations in measuring forest structure, the vertical distribution of the canopy. This is important because structure determines several key ecosystem functions, including: carbon storage; habitat suitability; and timber volume. Canopy structure is directly measured by LiDAR, and it should be possible to train Landsat structure models at a highly local scale with the dense, global sample of full waveform LiDAR observations collected by NASA’s Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI). Local models are expected to perform better because: (a) such models may take advantage of localized correlations between structure and canopy surface reflectance; and (b) to the extent that models revert to the mean of the calibration data due to a lack of discrimination, local models will revert to a more representative mean. We tested Landsat-based relative height predictions using a new GEDI asset on Google Earth Engine, described here. Mean prediction error declined by 23% and important prediction biases at the extremes of the range of canopy height dropped as model calibration became more local, minimizing forest structure signal saturation commonly associated with Landsat and other passive optical sensors. Our results suggest that Landsat-based maps of structural variables such as height and biomass may substantially benefit from the kind of local calibration that GEDI’s dense sample of LiDAR data supports.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/rs12172840

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Canopy height estimation with existing standard tools tends to struggle with the underestimation of tall canopies, as the height estimates saturate around 25 to 30 m.

    “In particular, canopy height estimation with existing standard tools tends to struggle with the underestimation of tall canopies, as the height estimates saturate around 25 to 30 m (refs. 26–28).”

    From A high-resolution canopy height model of the Earth (2023) · cites this paper as [28]

  • A further restriction of prior large-scale CHM projects is that they rely on local calibration, which hampers their use in locations without nearby reference data.

    “A further restriction of prior large-scale CHM projects is that they rely on local calibration, which hampers their use in locations without nearby reference data27,28.”

    From A high-resolution canopy height model of the Earth (2023) · cites this paper as [28]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Cohen, 2004, Landsat’s Role in Ecological Applications of Remote Sensing, Bioscience, 54, 535, 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0535:LRIEAO]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  2. Kennedy, 2010, Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 1. LandTrendr—Temporal segmentation algorithms, Remote Sens. Environ., 114, 2897, 10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.008 · DOI
  3. Lu, D., Chen, Q., Wang, G., Moran, E., Batistella, M., Zhang, M., Vaglio Laurin, G., and Saah, D. (2012). Aboveground Forest Biomass Estimation with Landsat and LiDAR Data and Uncertainty Analysis of the Estimates. Int. J. For. Res., 2012. · DOI
  4. Carreiras, 2017, Mapping major land cover types and retrieving the age of secondary forests in the Brazilian Amazon by combining single-date optical and radar remote sensing data, Remote Sens. Environ., 194, 16, 10.1016/j.rse.2017.03.016 · DOI
  5. Avitabile, 2012, Capabilities and limitations of Landsat and land cover data for aboveground woody biomass estimation of Uganda, Remote Sens. Environ., 117, 366, 10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.012 · DOI
  6. Freitas, 2005, Relationships between forest structure and vegetation indices in Atlantic Rainforest, For. Ecol. Manag., 218, 353, 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.08.036 · DOI
  7. Bawa, 2002, Assessing biodiversity from space: An example from the Western Ghats, India, Ecol. Soc., 6, 7
  8. Chander, 2009, Summary of current radiometric calibration coefficients for Landsat MSS, TM, ETM+, and EO-1 ALI sensors, Remote Sens. Environ., 113, 893, 10.1016/j.rse.2009.01.007 · DOI
  9. Powell, 2010, Quantification of live aboveground forest biomass dynamics with Landsat time-series and field inventory data: A comparison of empirical modeling approaches, Remote Sens. Environ., 114, 1053, 10.1016/j.rse.2009.12.018 · DOI
  10. Song, 2016, Characterizing the magnitude, timing and duration of urban growth from time series of Landsat-based estimates of impervious cover, Remote Sens. Environ., 175, 1, 10.1016/j.rse.2015.12.027 · DOI
  11. Healey, 2006, Application of two regression-based methods to estimate the effects of partial harvest on forest structure using Landsat data, Remote Sens. Environ., 101, 115, 10.1016/j.rse.2005.12.006 · DOI
  12. McRoberts, 2006, A model-based approach to estimating forest area, Remote Sens. Environ., 103, 56, 10.1016/j.rse.2006.03.005 · DOI
  13. Saarela, S., Holm, S., Healey, S.P., Andersen, H.E., Petersson, H., Prentius, W., Patterson, P.L., Næsset, E., Gregoire, T.G., and Ståhl, G. (2018). Generalized hierarchical model-based estimation for aboveground biomass assessment using GEDI and landsat data. Remote Sens., 10. · DOI
  14. Ståhl, G., Saarela, S., Schnell, S., Holm, S., Breidenbach, J., Healey, S.P., Patterson, P.L., Magnussen, S., Næsset, E., and McRoberts, R.E. (2016). Use of models in large-area forest surveys: Comparing model-assisted, model-based and hybrid estimation. For. Ecosyst., 3. · DOI
  15. Cohen, 1995, Estimating the age and structure of forests in a multi-ownership landscape of western oregon, U.S.A, Int. J. Remote Sens., 16, 721, 10.1080/01431169508954436 · DOI
  16. Steininger, 2000, Satellite estimation of tropical secondary forest above-ground biomass: Data from Brazil and Bolivi, Int. J. Remote Sens., 21, 1139, 10.1080/014311600210119 · DOI
  17. Zhao, P., Lu, D., Wang, G., Wu, C., Huang, Y., and Yu, S. (2016). Examining spectral reflectance saturation in landsat imagery and corresponding solutions to improve forest aboveground biomass estimation. Remote Sens., 8. · DOI
  18. Foody, 2003, Predictive relations of tropical forest biomass from Landsat TM data and their transferability between regions, Remote Sens. Environ., 85, 463, 10.1016/S0034-4257(03)00039-7 · DOI
  19. Chi, H., Sun, G., Huang, J., Li, R., Ren, X., Ni, W., and Fu, A. (2017). Estimation of forest aboveground biomass in Changbai Mountain region using ICESat/GLAS and Landsat/TM data. Remote Sens., 9. · DOI
  20. Potapov, 2019, Annual continuous fields of woody vegetation structure in the Lower Mekong region from 2000–2017 Landsat time-series, Remote Sens. Environ., 232, 111278, 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111278 · DOI
  21. Dubayah, 2020, The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation: High-Resolution laser ranging of the Earth’s forests and topography, Sci. Remote Sens., 1, 100002, 10.1016/j.srs.2020.100002 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Hancock, 2019, The GEDI Simulator: A Large-Footprint Waveform Lidar Simulator for Calibration and Validation of Spaceborne Missions, Earth Space Sci., 6, 294, 10.1029/2018EA000506 · DOI
  23. Gorelick, 2017, Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone, Remote Sens. Environ., 202, 18, 10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031 · DOI
  24. Dubayah, R., Hofton, M., Blair, J.B., Armston, J., Tang, H., and Luthcke, S. (2020, August 31). GEDI L2A Elevation and Height Metrics Data Global Footprint Level V001. Available online: https://doi.org/10.5067/GEDI/GEDI02_A.001. · DOI
  25. Buchhorn, M., Smets, B., Bertels, L., Lesiv, M., Tsendbazar, N.-E., Herold, M., and Fritz, S. (2020). Copernicus Global Land Service: Land Cover 100m: Epoch 2015: Globe (Version V2.0.2) [Data set] 2019. Remote Sens., 12. · DOI
  26. Breiman, 2001, Random forests, Mach. Learn., 45, 5, 10.1023/A:1010933404324 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Diaz, 1997, Plant functional types and ecosystem function in relation to global change, J. Veg. Sci., 8, 463, 10.2307/3237198 · DOI
  28. Zhu, Z., Zhang, J., Yang, Z., Aljaddani, A.H., Cohen, W.B., Qiu, S., and Zhou, C. (2020). Continuous monitoring of land disturbance based on Landsat time series. Remote Sens. Environ., 238. · DOI
  29. Zhu, 2014, Continuous change detection and classification of land cover using all available Landsat data, Remote Sens. Environ., 144, 152, 10.1016/j.rse.2014.01.011 · DOI
  30. Cohen, W.B., Healey, S.P., Yang, Z., Stehman, S.V., Brewer, C.K., Brooks, E.B., Gorelick, N., Huang, C., Hughes, M.J., and Kennedy, R.E. (2017). How Similar Are Forest Disturbance Maps Derived from Different Landsat Time Series Algorithms?. Forests, 8. · DOI
  31. Patterson, 2019, Statistical properties of hybrid estimators proposed for GEDI—NASA’s global ecosystem dynamics investigation, Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 065007, 10.1088/1748-9326/ab18df · DOI
  32. Tyukavina, 2015, Aboveground carbon loss in natural and managed tropical forests from 2000 to 2012, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 74002, 10.1088/1748-9326/10/7/074002 · DOI
  33. Jantz, 2014, Carbon stock corridors to mitigate climate change and promote biodiversity in the tropics, Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 138, 10.1038/nclimate2105 · DOI
  34. Hansen, 2019, Global humid tropics forest structural condition and forest structural integrity maps, Sci. Data, 6, 1, 10.1038/s41597-019-0214-3 · DOI
  35. Luther, 2006, Biomass mapping using forest type and structure derived from Landsat TM imagery, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 8, 173
  36. Simard, M., Pinto, N., Fisher, J.B., and Baccini, A. (2011). Mapping forest canopy height globally with spaceborne lidar. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci., 116. · DOI
  37. Lang, 2019, Country-Wide high-resolution vegetation height mapping with Sentinel-2, Remote Sens. Environ., 233, 111347, 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111347 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Healey, S. P., Yang, Z., Gorelick, N., & Ilyushchenko, S.
Affiliations
  • US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT 84401, USA
  • Google Inc., Google Switzerland, 8002 Zurich, Switzerland
  • Google Inc., Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
Venue
Remote Sensing
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-09-01
Volume
12
Issue
17
Pages
2840
ISSN
2072-4292
Cited by
90
References
1
Language
en
Funders
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80HQTR18T0016, NNL 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