Search

Estimating individual tree diameters at breast height (DBH) from delineated crowns and tree heights on the basis of airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data provides a good opportunity for large-scale forest inventory. Generally, ground-based measurements are more accurate, but LiDAR data and derived DBH values can be obtained over larger areas for a relatively smaller cost if a right procedure is developed. A nonlinear least squares (NLS) regression is not an appropriate approach to predict the aboveground biomass (AGB) of individual trees from the estimated DBH because both the response variable and the regressor are subject to measurement errors. In this study, a system of compatible individual tree DBH and AGB error-in-variable models was developed using error-in-variable regression techniques based on both airborne LiDAR and field-measured datasets of individual Picea crassifolia Kom. trees, collected in northwestern China. Two parameter estimation algorithms, i.e., the two-stage error-in-variable model (TSEM) and the nonlinear seemingly unrelated regression (NSUR), were proposed for estimating the parameters in the developed system of compatible individual tree DBH and AGB error-in-variable models. Moreover, two model structures were applied to estimate AGB for comparison purposes: NLS with AGB estimation depending on DBH (NLS&DD) and NLS with AGB estimation not depending on DBH (NLS&NDD). The results showed that both TSEM and NSUR led to almost the same parameter estimates for the developed system. Moreover, the developed system effectively accounted for the inherent correlation between DBH and AGB as well as for the effects of measurement errors in the DBH on the predictions of AGB, whereas NLS&DD and NLS&NDD did not. A leave-one-out cross-validation indicated that the prediction accuracy of the developed system of compatible individual tree DBH and AGB error-in-variable models with NSUR was the highest among those estimated by the four methods evaluated, but, statistically, the accuracy improvement was not significantly different from zero. The main reason might be that, except for the measurement errors, other source errors were ignored in the modeling. This study implies that, overall, the proposed method provides the potential to expand the estimations of both DBH and AGB from individual trees to stands by combining the error-in-variable modeling and LiDAR data and improve their estimation accuracies, but its application needs to be further validated by conducting a systematical uncertainty analysis of various source errors in a future study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conventional ground survey data are very accurate, but expensive. Airborne lidar data can reduce the costs and effort required to conduct large-scale forest surveys. It is critical to improve biomass estimation and evaluate carbon stock when we use lidar data. Bayesian methods integrate prior information about unknown parameters, reduce the parameter estimation uncertainty, and improve model performance. This study focused on predicting the independent tree aboveground biomass (AGB) with a hierarchical Bayesian model using airborne LIDAR data and comparing the hierarchical Bayesian model with classical methods (nonlinear mixed effect model, NLME). Firstly, we chose the best diameter at breast height (DBH) model from several widely used models through a hierarchical Bayesian method. Secondly, we used the DBH predictions together with the tree height (LH) and canopy projection area (CPA) derived by airborne lidar as independent variables to develop the AGB model through a hierarchical Bayesian method with parameter priors from the NLME method. We then compared the hierarchical Bayesian method with the NLME method. The results showed that the two methods performed similarly when pooling the data, while for small sample sizes, the Bayesian method was much better than the classical method. The results of this study imply that the Bayesian method has the potential to improve the estimations of both DBH and AGB using LIDAR data, which reduces costs compared with conventional measurements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]