Engineering topics

Naesset, Erik

Publications and source records attributed to Naesset, Erik.

4 records

NASA NTRS2013

Taking Stock of Circumboreal Forest Carbon With Ground Measurements, Airborne and Spaceborne LiDAR

The boreal forest accounts for one-third of global forests, but remains largely inaccessible to ground-based measurements and monitoring. It contains large quantities of carbon in its vegetation and soils, and research suggests that it will be subject to increasingly severe climate-driven disturbance. We employ a suite of ground-, airborne- and space-based measurement techniques to derive the first satellite LiDAR-based estimates of aboveground carbon for the entire circumboreal forest biome. Incorporating these inventory techniques with uncertainty analysis, we estimate total aboveground carbon of 38 +/- 3.1 Pg. This boreal forest carbon is mostly concentrated from 50 to 55degN in eastern Canada and from 55 to 60degN in eastern Eurasia. Both of these regions are expected to warm >3 C by 2100, and monitoring the effects of warming on these stocks is important to understanding its future carbon balance. Our maps establish a baseline for future quantification of circumboreal carbon and the described technique should provide a robust method for future monitoring of the spatial and temporal changes of the aboveground carbon content.

Biomass↗

NASA NTRS2013

Comparison of Precision of Biomass Estimates in Regional Field Sample Surveys and Airborne LiDAR-Assisted Surveys in Hedmark County, Norway

Airborne scanning LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) has emerged as a promising tool to provide auxiliary data for sample surveys aiming at estimation of above-ground tree biomass (AGB), with potential applications in REDD forest monitoring. For larger geographical regions such as counties, states or nations, it is not feasible to collect airborne LiDAR data continuously ("wall-to-wall") over the entire area of interest. Two-stage cluster survey designs have therefore been demonstrated by which LiDAR data are collected along selected individual flight-lines treated as clusters and with ground plots sampled along these LiDAR swaths. Recently, analytical AGB estimators and associated variance estimators that quantify the sampling variability have been proposed. Empirical studies employing these estimators have shown a seemingly equal or even larger uncertainty of the AGB estimates obtained with extensive use of LiDAR data to support the estimation as compared to pure field-based estimates employing estimators appropriate under simple random sampling (SRS). However, comparison of uncertainty estimates under SRS and sophisticated two-stage designs is complicated by large differences in the designs and assumptions. In this study, probability-based principles to estimation and inference were followed. We assumed designs of a field sample and a LiDAR-assisted survey of Hedmark County (HC) (27,390 km2), Norway, considered to be more comparable than those assumed in previous studies. The field sample consisted of 659 systematically distributed National Forest Inventory (NFI) plots and the airborne scanning LiDAR data were collected along 53 parallel flight-lines flown over the NFI plots. We compared AGB estimates based on the field survey only assuming SRS against corresponding estimates assuming two-phase (double) sampling with LiDAR and employing model-assisted estimators. We also compared AGB estimates based on the field survey only assuming two-stage sampling (the NFI plots being grouped in clusters) against corresponding estimates assuming two-stage sampling with the LiDAR and employing model-assisted estimators. For each of the two comparisons, the standard errors of the AGB estimates were consistently lower for the LiDAR-assisted designs. The overall reduction of the standard errors in the LiDAR-assisted estimation was around 40-60% compared to the pure field survey. We conclude that the previously proposed two-stage model-assisted estimators are inappropriate for surveys with unequal lengths of the LiDAR flight-lines and new estimators are needed. Some options for design of LiDAR-assisted sample surveys under REDD are also discussed, which capitalize on the flexibility offered when the field survey is designed as an integrated part of the overall survey design as opposed to previous LiDAR-assisted sample surveys in the boreal and temperate zones which have been restricted by the current design of an existing NFI.

Comparison↗

NASA NTRS2009

Using LIDAR and Quickbird Data to Model Plant Production and Quantify Uncertainties Associated with Wetland Detection and Land Cover Generalizations

Spatiotemporal data from satellite remote sensing and surface meteorology networks have made it possible to continuously monitor global plant production, and to identify global trends associated with land cover/use and climate change. Gross primary production (GPP) and net primary production (NPP) are routinely derived from the MOderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) onboard satellites Terra and Aqua, and estimates generally agree with independent measurements at validation sites across the globe. However, the accuracy of GPP and NPP estimates in some regions may be limited by the quality of model input variables and heterogeneity at fine spatial scales. We developed new methods for deriving model inputs (i.e., land cover, leaf area, and photosynthetically active radiation absorbed by plant canopies) from airborne laser altimetry (LiDAR) and Quickbird multispectral data at resolutions ranging from about 30 m to 1 km. In addition, LiDAR-derived biomass was used as a means for computing carbon-use efficiency. Spatial variables were used with temporal data from ground-based monitoring stations to compute a six-year GPP and NPP time series for a 3600 ha study site in the Great Lakes region of North America. Model results compared favorably with independent observations from a 400 m flux tower and a process-based ecosystem model (BIOME-BGC), but only after removing vapor pressure deficit as a constraint on photosynthesis from the MODIS global algorithm. Fine resolution inputs captured more of the spatial variability, but estimates were similar to coarse-resolution data when integrated across the entire vegetation structure, composition, and conversion efficiencies were similar to upland plant communities. Plant productivity estimates were noticeably improved using LiDAR-derived variables, while uncertainties associated with land cover generalizations and wetlands in this largely forested landscape were considered less important.

Cook, Bruce D.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Estimating Volume, Biomass, and Carbon in Hedmark County, Norway Using a Profiling LiDAR

A profiling airborne LiDAR is used to estimate the forest resources of Hedmark County, Norway, a 27390 square kilometer area in southeastern Norway on the Swedish border. One hundred five profiling flight lines totaling 9166 km were flown over the entire county; east-west. The lines, spaced 3 km apart north-south, duplicate the systematic pattern of the Norwegian Forest Inventory (NFI) ground plot arrangement, enabling the profiler to transit 1290 circular, 250 square meter fixed-area NFI ground plots while collecting the systematic LiDAR sample. Seven hundred sixty-three plots of the 1290 plots were overflown within 17.8 m of plot center. Laser measurements of canopy height and crown density are extracted along fixed-length, 17.8 m segments closest to the center of the ground plot and related to basal area, timber volume and above- and belowground dry biomass. Linear, nonstratified equations that estimate ground-measured total aboveground dry biomass report an R(sup 2) = 0.63, with an regression RMSE = 35.2 t/ha. Nonstratified model results for the other biomass components, volume, and basal area are similar, with R(sup 2) values for all models ranging from 0.58 (belowground biomass, RMSE = 8.6 t/ha) to 0.63. Consistently, the most useful single profiling LiDAR variable is quadratic mean canopy height, h (sup bar)(sub qa). Two-variable models typically include h (sup bar)(sub qa) or mean canopy height, h(sup bar)(sub a), with a canopy density or a canopy height standard deviation measure. Stratification by productivity class did not improve the nonstratified models, nor did stratification by pine/spruce/hardwood. County-wide profiling LiDAR estimates are reported, by land cover type, and compared to NFI estimates.

Nelson, Ross↗