Mapping forest structure for wildlife habitat analysis using multi-sensor (LiDAR, SAR/InSAR, ETM plus , Quickbird) synergy
Mapping forest structure for wildlife habitat analysis using multi-sensor (LiDAR, SAR/InSAR, ETM plus , Quickbird) synergy
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.rse.2006.01.021
复制
发表时间：
2006-05-30
影响因子：
13.5
通讯作者：
Hunsaker, Carolyn
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hyde, Peter;Dubayah, Ralph;Hunsaker, Carolyn
森林结构的测量对于野生动物栖息地管理非常重要。绘制森林结构图的最佳战略将包括传统上由实地取样提供的垂直方面的详细测量，以及遥感提供的广泛空间覆盖。虽然目前没有一个单一的传感器能够提供这一点，但应该有可能将来自多个传感器的信息联合收割机结合起来，以获得合理的近似值。在这项研究中，我们比较估计的森林结构指标来自遥感在现场获得的测量（大树最大冠层高度，平均冠层高度，标准差冠层高度，生物量）。然后，我们统计结合联合收割机的结构信息，激光雷达，雷达和被动光学传感器，试图提高我们的估计的准确性。本研究结果表明，激光雷达是最好的单一传感器估计冠层高度和生物量。ETM+指标的增加显著改善了LiDAR对大型树木结构的估计，而Quickbird和干涉合成孔径雷达/SAR的估计略有改善或根本没有改善。所有传感器的组合比单独使用LiDAR更准确，但仅略优于LiDAR和ETM+的组合。LiDAR和RaDAR的结构度量基本上是冗余的，ETM+和Quickbird也是如此。(c)2006年爱思唯尔公司All rights reserved.
Measurements of forest structure are important for wildlife habitat management. An optimal strategy for mapping forest structure would include detailed measurements of the vertical dimension, which are traditionally provided by field sampling, together with the broad spatial coverage afforded by remote sensing. While no single sensor is capable of delivering this at the present time, it should be possible to combine information from multiple sensors to achieve a reasonable approximation. In this study, we compare estimates of forest structural metrics derived from remote sensing to measurements obtained in the field (large tree maximum canopy height, mean canopy height, standard deviation canopy height, and biomass). We then statistically combine structural information from LiDAR, RaDAR, and passive optical sensors in an attempt to improve accuracy of our estimates. The results of this study indicate that LiDAR is the best single sensor for estimating canopy height and biomass. The addition of ETM+ metrics significantly improved LiDAR estimates of large tree structure, while Quickbird and InSAR/SAR improved estimates either marginally or not at all. The combination of all sensors was more accurate than LiDAR alone, but only marginally better than the combination of LiDAR and ETM+. Structure metrics from LiDAR and RaDAR are essentially redundant, as are ETM+ and Quickbird. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.