Carbon estimation using sampling to correct LiDAR-assisted enhanced forest inventory estimates | Zendy

Yingbing Chen | Zendy; John A. Kershaw | Zendy; Yung-Han Hsu | Zendy; Ting-Ru Yang | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Open Access

Carbon estimation using sampling to correct LiDAR-assisted enhanced forest inventory estimates

Author(s) -

Yingbing Chen,

John A. Kershaw,

Yung-Han Hsu,

Ting-Ru Yang

Publication year - 2020

Publication title -

the forestry chronicle

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 0.335

H-Index - 49

eISSN - 1499-9315

pISSN - 0015-7546

DOI - 10.5558/tfc2020-003

Subject(s) - lidar , forest inventory , environmental science , sampling (signal processing) , estimator , coarse woody debris , biomass (ecology) , carbon fibers , ranging , carbon accounting , ratio estimator , forestry , remote sensing , statistics , mathematics , forest management , agroforestry , ecology , climate change , geography , computer science , habitat , algorithm , biology , minimum variance unbiased estimator , bias of an estimator , composite number , geodesy , computer vision , filter (signal processing)

Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) scanning has been increasingly applied in forest ecosystem surveys. Data from LiDAR describe forest structure and provide attribute information for forest inventory. These attributes can potentially aid in the estimation of biomass and carbon by providing sampling covariates. Therefore, this study explored the accuracy of estimating carbon storage by calibrating LiDAR attributes using list sampling with a ratio estimator. Standing tree carbon and down woody debris carbon were estimated across 10 broad forest types. LiDAR-derived gross total volume was used as a listing factor and big BAF samples to collect field data. Gross total volumes were “corrected” using a ratio estimator. The results show that standing tree carbon was 58.5 Mg C × ha -1 (± 2.9% SE), and dead woody debris carbon 1.8 Mg C × ha -1 (± 7.2% SE). With the exception of one forest type, these estimates were comparable to those derived from the carbon budget model of the Canadian forest sector (CBM-CFS3).

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research