English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Savanna ecosystems are challenging to map and monitor as their vegetation is highly dynamic in space and time. Understanding the structural diversity and biomass distribution of savanna vegetation requires high-resolution measurements over large areas and at regular time intervals. These requirements cannot currently be met through field-based inventories nor spaceborne satellite remote sensing alone. UAV-based remote sensing offers potential as an intermediate scaling tool, providing acquisition flexibility and cost-effectiveness. Yet despite the increased availability of lightweight LiDAR payloads, the suitability of UAV-based LiDAR for mapping and monitoring savanna 3D vegetation structure is not well established. We mapped a 1 ha savanna plot with terrestrial-, mobile- and UAV-based laser scanning (TLS, MLS, and ULS), in conjunction with a traditional field-based inventory (n = 572 stems &gt; 0.03 m). We treated the TLS dataset as the gold standard against which we evaluated the degree of complementarity and divergence of structural metrics from MLS and ULS. Sensitivity analysis showed that MLS and ULS canopy height models (CHMs) did not differ significantly from TLS-derived models at spatial resolutions greater than 2 m and 4 m respectively. Statistical comparison of the resulting point clouds showed minor over- and under-estimation of woody canopy cover by MLS and ULS, respectively. Individual stem locations and DBH measurements from the field inventory were well replicated by the TLS survey (R2 = 0.89, RMSE = 0.024 m), which estimated above-ground woody biomass to be 7% greater than field-inventory estimates (44.21 Mg ha−1 vs 41.08 Mg ha−1). Stem DBH could not be reliably estimated directly from the MLS or ULS, nor indirectly through allometric scaling with crown attributes (R2 = 0.36, RMSE = 0.075 m). MLS and ULS show strong potential for providing rapid and larger area capture of savanna vegetation structure at resolutions suitable for many ecological investigations; however, our results underscore the necessity of nesting TLS sampling within these surveys to quantify uncertainty. Complementing large area MLS and ULS surveys with TLS sampling will expand our options for the calibration and validation of multiple spaceborne LiDAR, SAR, and optical missions.

Leveraging TLS as a Calibration and Validation Tool for MLS and ULS Mapping of Savanna Structure and Biomass at Landscape-Scales