LabrecqueFournierLutherEtAl2006

Référence

Labrecque, S., Fournier, R.A., Luther, J.E. and Piercey, D. (2006) A comparison of four methods to map biomass from Landsat-TM and inventory data in western Newfoundland. Forest Ecology and Management, 226(1-3):129-144. (Scopus )

Résumé

Spatial measures of forest biomass are important to implement sustainable forest management, monitor global change, and model forest productivity. Several methods for estimating forest biomass by remote sensing have been developed, but their comparative advantages have not been evaluated for large areas in Canada. This study compares four methods to map forest biomass on an extended pilot region (20,000 km<sup>2</sup>) located in western Newfoundland. The methods include: (i) Direct Radiometric Relationships (DRR), (ii) k-Nearest Neighbors (k-NN), (iii) Land Cover Classification (LCC), and (iv) Biomass from Cluster Labeling Using Structure and Type (BioCLUST). The results of each method were evaluated using an independent set of ground survey plots and compared with a baseline biomass map generated from biomass tables applied to forest inventory stand maps. Considering the root mean square error (RMSE) assessed with the inventory plots, the DRR, k-NN, and BioCLUST methods provided similar results, with average RMSE values of 59, 59, and 58 t/ha, respectively. Bias values were lowest for the k-NN method followed by DRR, BioCLUST, and LCC (6, -8, 17, and 42 t/ha, respectively). Assessed with the baseline map, the BioCLUST method produced the lowest RMSE (41 t/ha) and bias (-4 t/ha) followed by the DRR and k-NN methods, with RMSE values of 47 and 54 t/ha and bias values of 9 and 23 t/ha, respectively. The method using biomass tables applied on the classified TM image (LCC) provided the greatest RMSE and bias, but may be suitable for applications that do not require a high level of precision. The BioCLUST and LCC methods provided practical advantages for the type of data sets available. Overall, the choice of a method rests on both the availability of data sets and the level of precision of the results required. Crown Copyright © 2006.

Format EndNote

Vous pouvez importer cette référence dans EndNote.

Format BibTeX-CSV

Vous pouvez importer cette référence en format BibTeX-CSV.

Format BibTeX

Vous pouvez copier l'entrée BibTeX de cette référence ci-bas, ou l'importer directement dans un logiciel tel que JabRef .

@ARTICLE { LabrecqueFournierLutherEtAl2006,
    AUTHOR = { Labrecque, S. and Fournier, R.A. and Luther, J.E. and Piercey, D. },
    TITLE = { A comparison of four methods to map biomass from Landsat-TM and inventory data in western Newfoundland },
    JOURNAL = { Forest Ecology and Management },
    YEAR = { 2006 },
    VOLUME = { 226 },
    PAGES = { 129-144 },
    NUMBER = { 1-3 },
    ABSTRACT = { Spatial measures of forest biomass are important to implement sustainable forest management, monitor global change, and model forest productivity. Several methods for estimating forest biomass by remote sensing have been developed, but their comparative advantages have not been evaluated for large areas in Canada. This study compares four methods to map forest biomass on an extended pilot region (20,000 km<sup>2</sup>) located in western Newfoundland. The methods include: (i) Direct Radiometric Relationships (DRR), (ii) k-Nearest Neighbors (k-NN), (iii) Land Cover Classification (LCC), and (iv) Biomass from Cluster Labeling Using Structure and Type (BioCLUST). The results of each method were evaluated using an independent set of ground survey plots and compared with a baseline biomass map generated from biomass tables applied to forest inventory stand maps. Considering the root mean square error (RMSE) assessed with the inventory plots, the DRR, k-NN, and BioCLUST methods provided similar results, with average RMSE values of 59, 59, and 58 t/ha, respectively. Bias values were lowest for the k-NN method followed by DRR, BioCLUST, and LCC (6, -8, 17, and 42 t/ha, respectively). Assessed with the baseline map, the BioCLUST method produced the lowest RMSE (41 t/ha) and bias (-4 t/ha) followed by the DRR and k-NN methods, with RMSE values of 47 and 54 t/ha and bias values of 9 and 23 t/ha, respectively. The method using biomass tables applied on the classified TM image (LCC) provided the greatest RMSE and bias, but may be suitable for applications that do not require a high level of precision. The BioCLUST and LCC methods provided practical advantages for the type of data sets available. Overall, the choice of a method rests on both the availability of data sets and the level of precision of the results required. Crown Copyright © 2006. },
    COMMENT = { Cited By (since 1996): 17 Export Date: 10 February 2010 Source: Scopus CODEN: FECMD doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.01.030 },
    ISSN = { 03781127 (ISSN) },
    KEYWORDS = { Forest biomass, Landsat-TM, Mapping, Remote sensing, Data acquisition, Ecology, Forestry, Mapping, Remote sensing, Surveys, Direct Radiometric Relationships (DRR), Forest biomass, Landsat-TM, Root mean square error (RMSE), Biomass, biomass, forestry, Landsat, mapping, remote sensing, Biomass, Data Processing, Ecology, Forestry, Mapping, Remote Sensing, Surveys, Canada, Newfoundland, Newfoundland and Labrador, North America },
    OWNER = { Luc },
    TIMESTAMP = { 2010.02.10 },
    URL = { http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-33645912920&partnerID=40&md5=7bac978ca340f44dec7fde174133445c },
}

********************************************************** ***************** Facebook Twitter *********************** **********************************************************

Abonnez-vous à
l'Infolettre du CEF!

********************************************************** ***************** Pub - Mycorhizes_2019 ****************** **********************************************************

********************************************************** ***************** Pub - Symphonies_Boreales ****************** **********************************************************

********************************************************** ***************** Boîte à trucs *************** **********************************************************

CEF-Référence
La référence vedette !

Jérémie Alluard (2016) Les statistiques au moments de la rédaction 

  • Ce document a pour but de guider les étudiants à intégrer de manière appropriée une analyse statistique dans leur rapport de recherche.

Voir les autres...