Synthesis of L-Band SAR and Forest Heights Derived from TanDEM-X DEM and 3 Digital Terrain Models for Biomass Mapping

Author:

Hojo Ai,Takagi KentaroORCID,Avtar RamORCID,Tadono TakeoORCID,Nakamura Futoshi

Abstract

In this study, we compared the accuracies of above-ground biomass (AGB) estimated by integrating ALOS (Advanced Land Observing Satellite) PALSAR (Phased-Array-Type L-Band Synthetic Aperture Radar) data and TanDEM-X-derived forest heights (TDX heights) at four scales from 1/4 to 25 ha in a hemi-boreal forest in Japan. The TDX heights developed in this study included nine canopy height models (CHMs) and three model-based forest heights (ModelHs); the nine CHMs were derived from the three digital surface models (DSMs) of (I) TDX 12 m DEM (digital elevation model) product, (II) TDX 90 m DEM product and (III) TDX 5 m DSM, which we developed from two TDX–TSX (TerraSAR-X) image pairs for reference, and the three digital terrain models (DTMs) of (i) an airborne Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)-based DTM (LiDAR DTM), (ii) a topography-based DTM and (iii) the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) DEM; the three ModelHs were developed from the two TDX-TSX image pairs used in (III) and the three DTMs (i to iii) with the Sinc inversion model. In total, 12 AGB estimation models were developed for comparison. In this study, we included the C-band SRTM DEM as one of the DTMs. According to Walker et al. (2007), the SRTM DEM serves as a DTM for most of the Earth’s surface, except for the areas with extensive tree and/or shrub coverage, e.g., the boreal and Amazon regions. As our test site is located in a hemi-boreal zone with medium forest cover, we tested the ability of the SRTM DEM to serve as a DTM in our test site. This study especially aimed to analyze the capability of the two TDX DEM products (I and II) to estimate AGB in practice in the hemi-boreal region, and to examine how the different forest height creation methods (the simple DSM and DTM subtraction for the nine CHMs and the Sinc inversion model-based approach for the three ModelHs) and the different spatial resolutions of the three DSMs and three DTMs affected the AGB estimation results. We also conducted the slope-class analysis to see how the varying slopes influenced the AGB estimation accuracies. The results show that the combined use of the PALSAR data and the CHM derived from (I) TDX 12 m DEM and (i) LiDAR DTM achieved the highest AGB estimation accuracies across the scales (R2 ranged from 0.82 to 0.97), but the CHMs derived from (I) TDX 12 m DEM and another two DTMs, (ii) and (iii), showed low R2 values at any scales. In contrast, the two CHMs derived from (II) TDX 90 m DEM and both (i) LiDAR DTM and (iii) SRTM DEM showed high R2 values > 0.87 and 0.78, respectively, at the scales > 9.0 ha, but they yielded much lower R2 values at smaller scales. The three ModelHs gave the lowest R2 values across the scales (R2 ranged from 0.39 to 0.60). Analyzed by slope class at the 1.0 ha scale, however, all the 12 AGB estimation models yielded high R2 values > 0.66 at the lowest slope class (0° to 9.9°), including the three ModelHs (R2 ranged between 0.68 to 0.69). The two CHMs derived from (II) TDX 90 m DEM and both (i) LiDAR DTM and (iii) SRTM DEM showed R2 values of 0.80 and 0.71, respectively, at the lowest slope class, while the CHM derived from (I) TDX 12 m DEM and (i) LiDAR DTM showed high R2 values across the slope classes (R2 > 0.82). The results show that (I) TDX 12 m DEM had a high capability to estimate AGB, with a high accuracy across the scales and the slope classes in the form of CHM, but the use of (i) LiDAR DTM was required. On the other hand, (II) TDX 90 m DEM was able to achieve high AGB estimation accuracies not only with (i) LiDAR DTM, but also with (iii) SRTM DEM in the form of CHM, but it was limited to large scales > 9.0 ha; however, all the models developed in this study have the possibility to achieve higher AGB estimation accuracies at the 1.0 ha scale in flat terrains with slope < 10°. The analysis showed the strengths and limitations of each model, and it also indicates that the data creation methods, the spatial resolutions of datasets and topographic features affects the effective spatial scales for AGB mapping, and the optimal combinations of these features should be chosen to obtain high AGB estimation accuracies.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

General Earth and Planetary Sciences

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3