Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Analysis of Land Use/Cover Changes and Animal Population Dynamics in a Wildlife Sanctuary in East Africa
Next Article in Special Issue
Remote Sensing of Channels and Riparian Zones with a Narrow-Beam Aquatic-Terrestrial LIDAR
Previous Article in Journal
Remote Sensing and Spectral Characteristics of Desert Sand from Qatar Peninsula, Arabian/Persian Gulf
Previous Article in Special Issue
Discrete Return Lidar in Natural Resources: Recommendations for Project Planning, Data Processing, and Deliverables
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Remote Sensing
Volume 1
Issue 4
10.3390/rs1040934
remotesensing-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

LiDAR Utility for Natural Resource Managers

by
Andrew Thomas Hudak
1,*,
Jeffrey Scott Evans
2 and
Alistair Matthew Stuart Smith
3
1
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 1221 S. Main St., Moscow, ID 83843, USA
2
The Nature Conservancy, North America Region, 117 E. Mountain Ave., Suite 201, Fort Collins, CO 80524, USA
3
University of Idaho, College of Natural Resources, Department of Forest Resources, 975 W 6th St., Moscow, ID 83844-1133, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Remote Sens. 2009, 1(4), 934-951; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs1040934
Submission received: 31 August 2009 / Revised: 22 October 2009 / Accepted: 9 November 2009 / Published: 11 November 2009
(This article belongs to the Special Issue LiDAR)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Applications of LiDAR remote sensing are exploding, while moving from the research to the operational realm. Increasingly, natural resource managers are recognizing the tremendous utility of LiDAR-derived information to make improved decisions. This review provides a cross-section of studies, many recent, that demonstrate the relevance of LiDAR across a suite of terrestrial natural resource disciplines including forestry, fire and fuels, ecology, wildlife, geology, geomorphology, and surface hydrology. We anticipate that interest in and reliance upon LiDAR for natural resource management, both alone and in concert with other remote sensing data, will continue to rapidly expand for the foreseeable future.

1. Introduction

Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) increasingly is drawing the attention of natural resource managers. LiDAR data provide the needed resolution and detail of forests, rangelands, watersheds, roads, and other valued resources to inform and improve management decisions. LiDAR characterizations of ground and vegetation attributes of interest are consistently accurate, highlighting its potential for broad-scale applications. Multiple research studies in the past twenty years, many of which will be cited in this review, have contributed to a groundswell of interest that now extends well beyond the research community. Our objective in this review is to give forest managers and forest science researchers a better sense of how they might benefit by employing LiDAR, and why LiDAR might provide substantial improvement over other remote sensing data that they may (or may not) have tried to use in the past, perhaps with less satisfying results.
Unlike two-dimensional imagery, the vertical component of three-dimensional LiDAR data allows the analyst/user to separate ground vs. vegetation information, which is a prerequisite to most LiDAR applications, many of which focus exclusively on one or the other component. The most obvious and common example is the digital elevation model (DEM), the primary product of a LiDAR survey, used for hydrological, geomorphological, and other applications. The DEM of predicted ground elevation is an interpolated surface that accounts for topographic variation in the three-dimensional point cloud. Subtracting the DEM from the point cloud essentially “flattens” the earth, with the residual variation representing objects above the ground surface. Objects may be buildings in developed areas but otherwise represent predominantly trees and other vegetation.
Many LiDAR data users look no farther than the DEM, ignoring this residual variation. However, the residuals deserve the consideration of all users, because LiDAR ground vs. vegetation returns are not independent. This is evident when comparing DEMs generated from vegetated vs. non-vegetated environments. A DEM generated where vegetation is lacking is much “smoother”, and more accurately predicts ground elevation; a DEM from a vegetated environment is “rougher” because a lower proportion of returns penetrate the canopy to reflect the ground surface. Thus, the decreased continuity of ground returns in a vegetated environment leads to increased discontinuities in the DEM, with associated uncertainties.
The residual variation in the LiDAR point cloud due to vegetation might be considered “noise” to users interested only in the DEM but is considered a “gold mine” of information by vegetation and wildlife ecologists, in addition to managers. Most obvious is the canopy height information, while another measure having a direct physical basis is percent canopy cover, calculated as the percentage of LiDAR returns intercepted by the vegetation canopy, within a bin size (cell resolution) specified by the user. Calculated height, cover, or other vegetation metrics within these bins can be output as two-dimensional raster layers. These raster outputs are analogous to the bands in a multispectral image, but with the LiDAR outputs indicative of structural features rather than spectral. The distribution of canopy height values within a defined bin is effectively a “structural signature” analogous to the “spectral signature” of a hyperspectral image pixel, but they characterize very different vegetation properties. A structural signature would be a better basis by which to classify, say, potential old-growth, while a spectral signature should be more sensitive to, say, vegetation health. There is tremendous potential for complementarity between structural signatures and spectral signatures in future data integration research.
There is additional useful information associated with LiDAR points, including intensity values and return levels. Intensity values can differ between the ground and vegetation, or between coniferous and deciduous trees. Return level can provide additional information on whether a point more likely reflects the ground (i.e., “last” return) or the top of the vegetation canopy (i.e., “first” return). Excluding the first and last returns, the probability of intermediate (2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.) returns occurring at a given location should be in proportion to the canopy complexity. A fundamental characteristic of LiDAR that often is overlooked is that it is a sampling (not an imaging) tool. Even in the case of “scanning” or “imaging” discrete-return LiDAR systems, the fundamental sampling unit, or laser pulse “footprint”, rarely is distributed so densely as to provide continuous spatial coverage, like image pixels. Moreover, they are vertically distributed discontinuously in the third dimension, which is the main reason why LiDAR point densities vary in proportion to surface complexity across the landscape, while image pixel densities are spatially continuous.
Over the past decade, many LiDAR papers have been published including LiDAR reviews [1,2,3,4,5]. As LiDAR projects migrate into the operational realm, an increasing proportion of these recent papers exemplify the utility of LiDAR for natural resource managers. In a companion paper, Evans et al. (this issue) present LiDAR acquisition, processing, and product standards intended to be used as a guide for terrestrial natural resource managers interested in employing LiDAR but perhaps discouraged from doing so due to lack of technical expertise. Our intention for this review is to improve understanding and appreciation for the nature and utility of LiDAR data across a broad suite of natural resource applications. This cross-section of the current literature in terrestrial natural resource applications of LiDAR will be broken down into the following three topics: (1) characterization of forest structure which includes canopy surface, canopy interior, and individual trees; (2) natural resource applications which encompass forest inventory, fire and fuels, ecology and wildlife, geology, geomorphology, and surface hydrology; and (3) sensor integration. This paper will conclude with suggestions for further natural resource applications for managers and researchers.

2. Characterization of Forest Structure

Measures related to vegetation canopy height are the most commonly used attributes used to describe forest structure [6]. Prior studies have established relationships between tree height and diameter at breast height [7], providing a framework for quantifying other structural attributes using height as a proxy. Several physically based variables that can be modeled readily with LiDAR-derived height measures and are key for modeling forest structure include: number of canopy strata, tree crown diameter, tree height, stem density, biomass, basal area, volume, and understory vegetation components (height and cover). Canopy cover, calculated as the percentage of the LiDAR returns intercepted by vegetation, can be used to describe a variety of structural and ecological components. Canopy measures such as gap size and distribution have been used to identify late successional forest structures [8,9], describe habitat quality, and greatly influence radiation budgets in forest [10]. Multitemporal LiDAR provides the means to characterize gap dynamics [11]. Tree crown diameter estimates also have been useful in providing measures of successional stage, habitat diversity, stand development, and ecosystem function [8,12]. Natural and anthropogenic influences cause dramatic fluxes in carbon, making remote sensing of carbon stocks elusive. Because LiDAR has the ability to represent the variability in vertical canopy structure and provide accurate biomass estimates, ecosystem dynamics models can use LiDAR-derived inputs to quantify and monitor net carbon stocks and carbon flux in ecosystems [13,14].
Quantifying forest structure using LiDAR has been approached in three ways: (1) binning the data in the three-dimensional point cloud to reduce the data volume to a single measurement (e.g., height) representing the canopy surface; (2) calculating distributional moments (i.e., mean, variance, skewness, kurtosis) and other statistics (e.g., minimum, median, maximum, percentiles, etc.) on the height or density measures, also within a bin; and (3) identifying individual trees.

2.1. Canopy Surface

Measuring canopy surface height was the primary goal in early, single return, profiling systems [15,16,17,18], enabling estimation of biomass and vegetation structure characteristics. Attributes such as aboveground biomass could be predicted due to strong relationships with height [7]. Information regarding light gaps could be explored using canopy height distributions [19]. In a study to explore the aerodynamic properties of canopies, height profiles were used to quantify the aerodynamic roughness length, identifying the canopy height where the wind speed becomes zero [20]. Experiments such as this could eventually provide a risk index for potential wind blow-down events in forested systems. Using an inexpensive profiling system that was deployed using a low-flying helicopter, canopy height and canopy surface rugosity were used to classify trends in internal canopy structure such as percent cover and maximum and mean height [21]. This study empirically demonstrated that measures of the canopy surface can be used to identify certain internal structural characteristics.

2.2. Canopy Interior

Prior to the advent of LiDAR, measures of internal canopy structure historically have been highly impractical and thus virtually unattainable at landscape levels. LiDAR data provide densely spaced canopy height measures that can be empirically related to field measures of stand height [22,23], as well as other measures of stand structure [24]. To provide measures of vertical structure, the foliage-height profile [25,26] was adapted to LiDAR as the canopy-height profile [27] to infer the vertical distributions of all material within the canopy [28]. This method provides a means of quantifying complex structures that influence functional processes such as light interception and crown competition. Although the focus of this review is on discrete-return LiDAR systems, a notable advantage of waveform (i.e., “continuous return”) LiDAR systems is their more detailed characterization of vertical canopy structural profiles. Specifically, the canopy volume method classifies height ranges as a set of volumetric pixels (i.e., voxels), using LiDAR collected from waveform systems such as the Scanning LiDAR Imager of Canopies by Echo Recovery (SLICER) sensor [29]. Each voxel’s location in the canopy is classified along with the amount of light intercepted, describing biophysical differences across forest and successional types and greatly improving understanding of canopy structure. SLICER and other waveform sensor data are also related to canopy light penetration, leading to significant correlations between LiDAR-derived and field-based measurements of photosynthetically active radiation [30]. Similarly robust relationships have been established between field measures of incident photosynthetically active radiation and estimates derived from more commonly available discrete-return LiDAR [31]. The number of canopy returns above some height threshold (e.g., 1.37 m or breast height), divided by the number of total returns, is a highly useful measure of fractional cover. Fractional cover models that also use the intensity and return level information, and not just the proportion of canopy returns, have been found to be more accurate across different forest ecozones [32].
Stand structure attributes and aboveground biomass have been successfully estimated across different forest biomes using a variety of techniques including height quantile relationships and simple regression [29,33,34,35,36]. A suite of structural attributes were predicted in northern hardwood forests [37] and in Scandinavia [38], using moderate density LiDAR data and stepwise multiple regression models to predict: mean tree height, mean diameter, stem density, basal area, and timber volume. These same standard forestry inventory measures have been accurately predicted in coniferous and deciduous forests using best subsets regression and discrete-return LiDAR with relatively sparse pulse densities of 2–3 m [39,40]. Studies such as these make a strong case for LiDAR-based, landscape-level forest inventories in a management context. LiDAR’s ability to accurately represent canopy height and cover at variable sampling densities makes prediction and comparisons of vegetation structures feasible [41]. Indeed, scale-invariant approaches to predicting forest structural attributes hold much promise for predicting forest biomass [42] and other fundamental structure attributes of interest to forest managers. LiDAR-derived canopy height and density metrics (or structural indices) can also provide a means of assessing biodiversity [43] and exploring complex landscape patterns across a variety of scales. The advantages of higher sampling densities may be overblown, as increased LiDAR sample point densities only affect canopy height and density metrics from the very top or base of the canopy, and thus may add little value to stand-level management [44]. Single-story and multistory stands can be distinguished with 97% accuracy [45] with less than current technological capabilities.
Canopy complexity and complex terrain interact, potentially making LiDAR forestry applications more difficult. However, LiDAR enabled accurate prediction of canopy and subcanopy height under a wide range of canopy conditions in tropical systems, although accuracy was reduced under configurations of obscured ground and high slopes [46]. In a temperate mixed-conifer forest where individual conifer species distributions vary largely in response to topography, a variety of vegetation and topographic metrics generated from LiDAR data were used to predict plot-level basal area and tree density of [47,48]; the nonparametric Random Forests [49] algorithm yielded the most accurate and robust models. Studies characterizing the interior of closed canopies with plot-level variables are currently more applicable to operational stand-level management than studies focused on individual tree-level variables.

2.3. Individual Trees

Discrete-return sensors can collect data at point densities sufficient to accurately identify individual tree crowns in open canopies, such as in savanna woodlands [50]. The primary hurdle in large scale applications is the separation of tree crowns in dense forest [51,52]. In dense closed canopies tree crowns overlap, causing a model to perceive several trees as one, producing high rates of commission and omission errors in estimated single tree attributes from canopy height models. One successful approach combined canopy height model information with a quantitative measure of the relative penetration of small footprint discrete-return LiDAR pulses through the canopy, to reliably extract stem height and crown cover estimates that were sufficiently accurate for the inventory of multistory Australian woodlands with <700 stems ha−1 [53].
Several other novel approaches have been used in identification of individual trees for various applications. One study used multiscale smoothing on a canopy height model and then fit a parabolic surface at each scale to determine the best scale for identifying individual tree crowns; using the segmented crowns, crown shape information was derived to effectively separate pine and spruce [54]. A related study used a similar approach to identify tree crowns and then regression equations were fit to estimate stem diameter and tree height [55]. A wrapped surface approach was developed and applied to urban trees to estimate tree height, crown width, live crown base, height of the lowest branch, and crown volume [56]. Pre- and post-harvest LiDAR data have been used to identify specific trees removed from a segmented watershed [57]. Change detection at this scale has broad implications for forest ecology and management (e.g., harvest contract inspection).
In a study conducted in Finland on a mixed Norway spruce (Picea abies) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) forest, the accuracy of LiDAR in predicting individual tree height was assessed [58]. Accuracies were high on detecting dominant trees (83%) but were reduced considerably in mixed heterogeneous stands (40%). A variable moving window approach was developed to account for heterogeneous structures in the Piedmont physiographic province, Virginia, USA; validation gave support to the variable window approach, which explained 85% of the variation in tree height [59]. Further application of the variable window algorithm estimated volume and biomass based on identified tree heights and crown diameters [60,61]. Validation of these results using Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data across a range of vegetation and structural types explained 62% of the variation in crown diameter of dominant trees and 78% of the variation in biomass.
Several other individual tree identification methods have been considered and include local height maxima, minima or valley-following methods [62], and multiscale object-oriented approaches [52]. A multiscale two-dimensional discrete approximation to the continuous wavelet transformation showed some improvement over the variable window approach in a western mixed conifer forest [63,64]. These results demonstrate promise in the upscaling of individual trees for developing stand-based inventory distributions and structural projections.

3. Applications for Natural Resource Management

3.1. Forest Inventory

Many of the above studies support the development of large-scale inventory efforts, potentially being extended to regional level estimates utilizing data such as U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plots. A few promising inventory approaches have been proposed treating LiDAR as a subsample to provide large-scale inventory data [4]. A classic double sampling methodology for inventory estimates using LiDAR shows great promise [65,66]. Operational large-scale inventory efforts produced accuracies commensurate with field-based inventories in Norway [38] and Austria [67,68]. LiDAR has tremendous potential as a broad-scale sampling tool, such as in remote areas of Alaska, to inventory forest condition class and discriminate between deciduous and coniferous forest types, based on the intensity values collected during leaf-off conditions [69]. In closed canopies where tree crowns overlap, the ability to discriminate deciduous and coniferous species based on return intensity values, is more problematic and varies with LiDAR sensor settings [70]. In Norway, spruce vs. birch classification accuracies of 77% and 73% were obtained using structural and intensity features, respectively; combining these features increased the classification accuracy to 88% [71].
The tree attribute most readily measured in the field is diameter at breast height, and traditional forest inventories result in a distribution of diameters, typically measured in variable radius plots within stand sampling units. The density of LiDAR canopy height measures allows for much higher resolution maps, calibrated and validated with tree diameter distributions measured within independently geolocated, fixed-radius plots. Tree growth can be projected by coupling tree lists to a growth engine such as the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS; [72]). In mixed conifer forests of northern Idaho, LiDAR-based basal area predictions mapped at a 30 m × 30 m resolution were aggregated to the stand level and found to be statistically equivalent to predictions projected with FVS from industry stand exams [73]. A single LiDAR collection provides only a snapshot in time, yet the canopy height distribution is sufficiently informative to predict successional stage [74]. Diameter distributions of trees >12.5 cm can be reliably predicted from LiDAR canopy height data, as trees grow taller and stands less dense [75]. Predictive ability may be enhanced by using mixture models to help account for irregularities in structure at the plot level [76]. Direct detection of seedlings with airborne LiDAR is probably unrealistic, but because seedling densities relate to overstory canopy structure, this relationship could be exploited to improve predictions of regeneration success [77]. Not surprisingly, forest height growth can be directly measured with multitemporal LiDAR with more certainty at the plot level than at the tree level [78].

3.2. Fire and Fuels

The role that fire plays in the ecosystem as both a mechanism of disturbance and a threat to people, property, and natural resources makes fuel and fire behavior modeling essential for both researchers and managers. Fire models based on stand inventories have been used extensively for providing information on fuel attributes, with remote sensing playing an underutilized role [79]. The small role that remote sensing has played in fuel modeling is mostly due to the inability of spectral data to capture the structural complexity of closed canopies. Variables such as crown bulk density, crown fuel weight, and crown base height are by nature vertically organized through the canopy, making LiDAR uniquely suited to characterize these fuel attributes. There has been increased interest in using LiDAR to provide landscape-level input into fire behavior and fuel loading models [80,81,82,83,84,85], for which vertical structural information is critically needed.
To model specific variables for input into the FARSITE model [86], LiDAR was used to successfully predict crown bulk density, foliage biomass, and crown volume [81]. In another study, LiDAR-derived canopy density and modeled crown base height were input into FARSITE and found to describe much of the spatial variability associated with different fuel treatments [85]. Because FARSITE is a spatially explicit simulation model and these variables provide an accurate representation of the vertical canopy structure, it is now possible to derive a very accurate picture of spatially distributed fire behavior. Fuel model types [87] have been successfully identified using a LiDAR-derived measure of surface texture at the ground, thus characterizing fuel beds at the plot level [82]. A regression approach was used to predict crown bulk density, canopy base height, and crown fuel weight, demonstrating the effectiveness of LiDAR for characterizing landscape-level fuel-related variables [84]. Ground-based terrestrial laser scanner (TLS) LiDAR systems have been used to more precisely quantify fuel volume and other fine-scale fuelbed characteristics [88,89].

3.3. Ecology and Wildlife

Influences of habitat condition and forest structure on faunal assemblages have been well explored in wildlife studies. The seminal MacArthur and MacArthur study [90] established strong relationships between height diversity and bird species richness. Spectral remote sensing has provided landscape-level ecological data for describing the distribution and habitat utilization of key indicator species such as neotropical migrant birds [91]. However, most studies integrating remotely sensed data utilize only two-dimensional variables (e.g., land cover). Using LiDAR, three-dimensional relationships can be much more thoroughly explored [92], furthering our understanding of habitat use within the internal canopy. Because LiDAR can provide detailed structure information at various scales across the entire landscape, spatially-explicit hypotheses can now be tested allowing for quantification of the significance and sensitivity of relationships as well as spatial predictions. For instance, maps of the key wildlife habitats of understory shrubs and snags were predicted from LiDAR canopy density and height metrics in north-central Idaho [93]. Further use of LiDAR in building landscape structural relationships with faunal species is relatively unexplored and is a field ripe for further research [94].

3.4. Geology, Geomorphology, and Surface Hydrology

The DEMs derived from LiDAR provide fine-scale topographic features in unprecedented detail and improved accuracy over traditional DEMs, particularly in areas of low relief (e.g., wetlands) where precision limitations of traditional DEMs cause considerable mapping error [95]. LiDAR applications in the earth sciences—much like those in forestry—have progressed given the additional structural properties captured by LiDAR beyond what spectral imaging can provide. Geologists have used LiDAR extensively to identify fault lines, sediment transport, and bedrock types [96,97,98]. A variety of surface roughness metrics derived from LiDAR were used to quantify surface morphology and identify potential deep-seated landslides near Christchurch, New Zealand [99]. Another study quantified material type and topography influencing two canyon-rim landslides in southern Idaho [100]. Surface downwasting in a glacial environment was quantified by subtracting LiDAR-derived DEMs collected two years apart [101]. Similarly, a bare-earth DEM was subtracted from a peak snowpack DEM to accurately map snow depth [102]. LiDAR-based topography has been used to map side channel shallow water refuge habitats for targeted salmon stream restoration [103]. Subsequently, an airborne, blue-green waveform LiDAR (EAARL) was used to quantify the topographic amplitude of stream channel morphology and predict salmon nesting habitats [104].

4. Sensor Integration

Whereas LiDAR provides detailed forest structure information, spectral remote sensing is more sensitive to vegetation composition and phenology. Integration of LiDAR and spectral data thus provides a much more comprehensive view for understanding ecosystems. Besides providing a comprehensive classification of vegetation, the fusion of image and LiDAR data can be used to build empirical relationships that can be extrapolated to areas where spectral data are available but LiDAR data are not, offsetting the high cost of LiDAR [105,106]. A study integrating spatially discontinuous LiDAR with spatially continuous Landsat ETM+ data using both aspatial regression and spatial statistical models produced more accurate canopy height maps than using either modeling method alone [105]. Similarly improved height predictions were achieved in boreal forests by relating LiDAR to vegetation units derived from segmented Landsat ETM+7 imagery [106]. In a related study to measure wildfire effects on boreal forest structure, spatial patches analogous to forest stands were segmented from multitemporal Landsat imagery, then related to pre- and post-fire profiling LiDAR transects, to capture fire-induced structural change [107].
A number of other sensor integration studies cut across the fields of natural resource applications exemplified in the preceding sections. In a forestry application, LiDAR and four channel multispectral data were used to identify individual tree species and height [108]; by combining LiDAR and spectral information they improve their classification accuracy by up to 30% over a single data source. An accuracy of 96% was achieved in identifying individual tree species when combining LiDAR and multispectral image data [109]. Leaf Area Index (LAI), a critical structural property of vegetation canopies used to predict mass and energy fluxes, was reliably predicted from LiDAR in coniferous forest; however, the inclusion of SPOT image-derived spectral vegetation indices in an integrated model provided only negligible improvement [110]. A method was formulated for using LiDAR and effective LAI to validate vegetation cover estimated from multispectral IKONOS and Landsat ETM+ imagery [111] in ponderosa pine forest. In the Black Hills of South Dakota, USA, vegetation height layers identified from LiDAR were combined with IKONOS multispectral satellite imagery to assess avian species occurrence, density, and diversity [112].
Forest biomass estimates have been improved by integrating LiDAR and hyperspectral image data [113]. LiDAR and hyperspectral image data have been combined in Hawaiian rain forests to detect invasive species [114], particularly alien grasses that have altered the fire regime in Hawaii [115]. Fusion of LiDAR, multispectral, and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) data was tested to optimize prediction of variables relating to wildlife habitat and carbon stores [116]; results showed that the best combination of variables were from LiDAR and ETM+7, whereas InSAR and Quickbird did little to improve models. A similar study explored LiDAR-radar synergy for predicting aboveground biomass, and found only negligible improvement by including radar [117]. LiDAR has also been found to be superior to radar for accurately detecting the height of individual trees and forest plots [118]. However, others argue that because LiDAR and radar sensitivities differ so markedly at fine scales, LiDAR-radar comparisons are only useful at broad scales [119]. For instance, aboveground biomass was accurately estimated across the entire forested region of southern Quebec province in Canada by integrating DEM information from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM), spaceborne waveform LiDAR from the ICESat Geoscience Laser Altimeter System (GLAS), airborne profiling LiDAR collected over ground plots, and ground inventory plot data [120].
Much less is known regarding the utility of LiDAR assessments in nonforested ecosystems than in forests. One challenge arises from an inherent electronic limitation of discrete-return LiDAR systems. Discrete-return systems can only record returns separated by nanosecond time intervals that translate into a vertical distance of several cm. Dense, low vegetation can generate a return but may lie too close to the ground for the sensor to reset in readiness for a subsequent ground return from a given laser pulse. LiDAR returns in dense shrublands have been found to reflect the larger woody structures within the shrub layer, rather than the shrub canopy surface [121]. This systematic height underestimation bias has been widely observed in forest canopies but may be more problematic in shrublands given their much lower height relative to the ground. Thus, theoretically, a lower proportion of ground returns would be collected from a shrubland having the same canopy cover as a forest, but rigorous testing of this theory is required. In practice, the high pulse density capability of current discrete-return systems should ensure adequate ground returns for most applications. Small footprint full-waveform LiDAR systems can provide more detailed information than discrete-return LiDAR systems in low vegetation and forest understories [122]. Data integration may provide another practical solution. One recent study observed that the application of either high pulse density LiDAR or corresponding very high spatial resolution (0.25 m) spectral imagery enabled individual shrub metrics to be determined at accuracies similar to other studies focused on individual trees [123]. At the very least, the canopy structure detail provided by LiDAR can be integrated with multispectral imagery to enhance the accuracy of rangeland vegetation classification [124].

5. Conclusions

The body of knowledge and literature on useful LiDAR applications has rapidly expanded in recent years. This points to the improved ability of LiDAR, compared to passive optical imagery, in capturing the three-dimensional form of the earth’s surface. LiDAR is especially informative and advantageous wherever the surface structure is complex. Greater awareness regarding LiDAR utility and limitations is becoming increasingly relevant for a broader audience as LiDAR projects migrate from the research to operational realms. As highlighted in this review, most LiDAR research applications have focused on “what can we do” questions, such as can we measure individual tree heights and crown dimensions, canopy fuel loads and biomass, etc. This methodological focus is exemplified by the considerable body of papers that focus on ever improved methods to derive accurate DEMs, characterize individual trees, assess differing sensor characteristics, evaluate between conifers and deciduous species, among other topics. Moreover, most studies to date are case studies that focus on a static condition (e.g., vegetation structure) at a single point in time. As more natural resource managers begin to employ LiDAR datasets, research will be needed to link both the structural and spectral signatures in novel ways that actually help elucidate ecological processes at larger spatial and temporal scales. Aspects of such research may include the direct input of LiDAR-derived metrics into empirical growth and ecophysiological process models such as FVS and Biome BGC, respectively. New LiDAR research directions will likely include multitemporal assessments to measure and monitor processes such as forest growth, fuel accumulation, and carbon sequestration.
We expect that the quantity and quality of natural resource applications of LiDAR remote sensing will continue to expand, with new research developments continuing to meet operational demands, and operational needs in turn driving research questions. This is exactly what drives productive research and technology transfer in the broader LiDAR user community. For these reasons, we anticipate that LiDAR remote sensing will continue to be a dynamic and exciting field for the foreseeable future.

Acknowledgements

Partial support for this research came from the Sustainable Forestry component of Agenda 2020, a joint effort of USDA Forest Service Research and Development and the American Forest and Paper Association. Additional funding was provided by the Rocky Mountain Research Station. We appreciated the suggestions provided by four anonymous reviewers.

References and Notes

  1. Dubayah, R.O.; Drake, J.B. Lidar remote sensing for forestry applications. J. For. 2000, 98, 44–46. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lefsky, M.A.; Cohen, W.B.; Parker, G.G.; Harding, D.J. Lidar remote sensing for ecosystem studies. Bioscience 2002, 52, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Reutebuch, S.; Andersen, H.; McGaughey, B. Light detection and ranging (LIDAR): an emerging tool for multiple resource inventory. J. For. 2005, 286–292. [Google Scholar]
  4. Evans, D.L.; Roberts, S.D.; Parker, R.C. LiDAR—a new tool for forest measurements? For. Chron. 2006, 82, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wulder, M.A.; Bater, C.W.; Coops, N.C.; Hilker, T.; White, J.C. The role of LiDAR in sustainable forest management. For. Chron. 2008, 84, 807–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Brokaw, N.V.L.; Lent, R.A. Vertical structure. In Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems; Hunter, I., Malcom, L., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1999; pp. 373–399. [Google Scholar]
  7. Temesgen, H.; Gadow, K.V. Generalised height-diameter models—an application for major tree species in complex stands of interior British Columbia. Eur. J. Forest Res. 2004, 123, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Spies, T.A.; Franklin, J.F. The structure of natural young, mature, and old-growth Douglas-fir forest in Oregon and Washington. In Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-fir Forest; USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285; Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  9. Tyrrell, L.F.; Crow, T.R. Structural characteristics of old-growth hemlock-hardwood forest in relation to age. Ecology 1994, 75, 370–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Essery, R.J.; Pomeroy, C.E.; Link, T. Modelling longwave radiation to snow beneath forest canopies using hemispherical photography or linear regression. Hydrolog. Process. 2008, 22, 2788–2800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Vepakomma, U.; St-Onge, B.; Kneeshaw, D. Spatially explicit characterization of boreal forest gap dynamics using mulit-temporal lidar data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2008, 112, 2326–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ziegler, S.S. A comparison of structural characteristics between old-growth and post fire second growth hemlock-hardwood forest in Adirondack Park, New York. USA. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 2000, 9, 373–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hurtt, G.C.; Dubayah, R.; Drake, J.; Moorcroft, P.R.; Pacala, S.W.; Blair, J.B.; Fearon, M.G. Beyond potential vegetation: combining lidar data and a height-structured model for carbon studies. Ecol. Appl. 2004, 14, 873–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Patenaude, G.; Hill, R.A.; Milne, R.; Gaveau, D.L.A.; Briggs, B.B.J.; Dawson, T.P. Quantifying forest above ground carbon content using lidar remote sensing. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 93, 368–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nelson, R.; Krabill, W.; Maclean, G. Determining forest canopy characteristics using airborne laser data. Remote Sens. Environ. 1984, 15, 201–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nelson, R.; Swift, R.; Krabill, W. Using airborne lasers to estimate forest canopy and stand characteristics. J. For. 1988, 86, 31–38. [Google Scholar]
  17. Nelson, R.; Parker, G.; Hom, M. A portable airborne laser system for forest inventory. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2003, 69, 267–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nelson, R.; Short, A. Measuring biomass and carbon in Delaware using an airborne profiling lidar. Scand. J. For. Res. 2004, 19, 500–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Spies, T.A.; Franklin, J.F.; Klopsch, M. Canopy gaps in Douglas-fir forests of the Cascade Mountains. Can. J. For. Res. 1990, 5, 649–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Menenti, M.; Ritchie, J.C. Estimation of effective aerodynamic roughness of Walnut Gulch Watershed with laser altimeter measurements. Water Resour. Res. 1994, 30, 1329–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Parker, G.G.; Russ, M.E. The canopy surface and stand development: assessing forest canopy structure and complexity with near-surface altimetry. For. Ecol. Manage. 2004, 189, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Næsset, E. Determination of mean tree height of forest stands using airborne laser scanner data. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 1997, 52, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Magnussen, S.; Boudewyn, P. Derivations of stand heights from airborne laser scanner data with canopy-based quantile estimators. Can. J. For. Res. 1998, 28, 1016–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lefsky, M.A.; Hudak, A.T.; Cohen, W.B.; Acker, S.A. Patterns of covariance between forest stand and canopy structure in the Pacific Northwest. Remote Sens. Environ. 2005, 95, 517–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Abner, J.D. Foliage-height profiles and succession in northern hardwood forest. Ecology 1979, 60, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. MacArthur, R.H.; Horn, H.S. Foliage profiled by vertical measurements. Ecology 1969, 50, 802–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Harding, D.J.; Lefsky, M.A.; Parker, G.G.; Blair, J.B. Laser altimeter canopy height profiles: Methods and validation for closed-canopy, broadleaf forests. Remote Sens. Environ. 2001, 76, 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Coops, N.; Hilker, T.; Wulder, M.; St-Onge, B.; Siggins, A.; Newhnam, G.; Trofymow, J.A. Estimating canopy structure of Douglas-fir forest stands from discrete-return LIDAR. Trees Struct. Func. 2007, 21, 295–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lefsky, M.A.; Cohen, W.B.; Acker, S.A.; Spies, T.A.; Parker, G.G.; Harding, D. Lidar remote sensing of the canopy structure and biophysical properties of Douglas-fir western hemlock forests. Remote Sens. Environ. 1999, 70, 339–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Parker, G.G.; Lefsky, M.A.; Harding, D.J. PAR transmittance in forest canopies determined from airborne lidar altimetry and from in-canopy quantum measurements. Remote Sens. Environ. 2001, 76, 298–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lee, H.; Slatton, K.C.; Roth, B.E.; Cropper, W.P., Jr. Prediction of forest canopy light interception using three-dimensional airborne LiDAR data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2009, 30, 189–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hopkinson, C.; Chasmer, L. Testing LiDAR models of fractional cover across multiple forest ecozones. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, 275–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lefsky, M.A.; Harding, D.; Cohen, W.B.; Parker, G.; Shugart, H.H. Surface lidar remote sensing of basal area and biomass in deciduous forests of eastern Maryland, USA. Remote Sens. Environ. 1999, 67, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lefsky, M.A.; Cohen, W.B.; Harding, D.; Parker, G.G.; Acker, S.A.; Gower, S.T. Lidar remote sensing of aboveground biomass in three biomes. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 2002, 11, 393–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lefsky, M.A.; Hudak, A.T.; Cohen, W.B.; Acker, S.A. Geographic variability in lidar predictions of forest stand structure in the Pacific Northwest. Remote Sens. Environ. 2005, 95, 532–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lim, K.S.; Treitz, P.M. Estimation of above ground forest biomass from airborne discrete return laser scanner data using canopy-based quantile estimators. Scand. J. For. Res. 2004, 19, 558–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lim, K.S.; Treitz, P.M.; Baldwin, K.; Morrison, I.; Green, J. Lidar remote sensing of biophysical properties of tolerant northern hardwood forests. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2003, 29, 658–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Næsset, E. Practical large-scale forest stand inventory using a small-footprint airborne scanning laser. Scand. J. For. Res. 2004, 19, 164–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hudak, A.T.; Crookston, N.L.; Evans, J.S.; Falkowski, M.J.; Smith, A.M.S.; Morgan, P.; Gessler, P. Regression modeling and mapping of coniferous forest basal area and tree density from discrete-return lidar and multispectral satellite data. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2006, 32, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Woods, M.; Lim, K.; Treitz, P. Predicting forest stand variables from LiDAR data in the Great Lakes—St. Lawrence forest of Ontario. For. Chron. 2008, 84, 827–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Koop, H.; Rijksen, H.D.; Wind, J. Tools to diagnose forest integrity: an appraisal method substantiated by Silvi-Star assessment of diversity and forest structure. In Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity in Tropical and Temperate Forests; Boyle, T.J.B., Boontawee, B., Eds.; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 1995; pp. 309–333. [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhao, K.; Popescu, S.; Nelson, R. Lidar remote sensing of forest biomass: a scale-invariant estimation approach using airborne lasers. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 133, 182–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Parkes, D.; Newell, G.; Cheal, D. Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the “habitat hectares” approach. Ecol. Manage. Restor. 2003, 4, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lim, K.; Hopkinson, C.; Treitz, P. Examining the effects of sampling point densities on laser canopy height and density metrics. For. Chron. 2008, 84, 876–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zimble, D.A.; Evans, D.L.; Carlson, G.C.; Parker, R.C.; Grado, S.C.; Gerard, P.D. Characterizing vertical forest structure using small-footprint airborne lidar. Remote Sens. Environ. 2003, 87, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Clark, M.L.; Clark, D.B.; Roberts, D.A. Small-footprint lidar estimation of sub-canopy elevation and tree height in a tropical rain forest landscape. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 91, 68–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hudak, A.T.; Crookston, N.L.; Evans, J.S.; Hall, D.E.; Falkowski, M.J. Nearest neighbor imputation modeling of species-level, plot-scale structural attributes from lidar data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2008, 112, 2232–2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hudak, A.T.; Crookston, N.L.; Evans, J.S.; Hall, D.E.; Falkowski, M.J. Corrigendum to Nearest neighbor imputation of species-level, plot-scale forest structure attributes from LiDAR data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, 289–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learning. 2001, 45, 5–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, Q.; Baldocchi, D.; Gong, P.; Kelly, M. Isolating individual trees in a savanna woodland using small footprint lidar data. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2006, 72, 923–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Maltamo, M.; Eerikainen, K.; Pitkanen, J.; Hyyppa, J.; Vehmas, M. Estimation of timber volume and stem density based on scanning laser altimetry and expected tree size distribution functions. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 90, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wang, L.; Gong, P.; Biging, G.S. Individual tree-crown delineation and treetop detection in high-spatial-resolution aerial imagery. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2004, 70, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lee, A.C.; Lucas, R.M. A LiDAR-derived canopy density model for tree stem and crown mapping in Australian forests. Remote Sens. Environ. 2007, 111, 493–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Holmgren, J.; Persson, A. Identifying species of individual trees using airborne laser scanner. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 90, 415–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Holmgren, J.; Nilsson, M.; Olsson, H. Estimation of tree height and stem volume on plots using airborne laser scanning. For. Sci. 2003, 49, 419–428. [Google Scholar]
  56. Kato, A.; Monika Moskal, L.; Schiess, P.; Swanson, M.E.; Calhoun, D.; Stuetzle, W. Capturing tree crown formation through implicit surface reconstruction using airborne lidar data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, 1148–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yu, X.; Hyyppa, J.; Kaartinen, H.; Maltamo, M. Automatic detection of harvested trees and determination of forest growth using airborne laser scanning. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 90, 451–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Maltamo, M.; Mustonen, K.; Hyyppa, J.; Pitkanen, J.; Yu, X. The accuracy of estimating individual tree variables with airborne laser scanning in a boreal nature reserve. Can. J. For. Res. 2004, 34, 1791–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Popescu, S.C.; Wynne, R.H.; Nelson, R. Estimating plot-level tree heights with lidar: local filtering with a canopy-height based variable window size. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2002, 37, 71–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Popescu, S.C.; Wynne, R.H.; Nelson, R. Measuring individual tree crown diameter with lidar and assessing its influence on estimating forest volume and biomass. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2003, 29, 564–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Popescu, S. Estimating biomass of individual pine trees using airborne lidar. Biomass Bioenergy. 2007, 31, 646–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Leckie, D.; Gougeon, F.; Hill, D.; Quinn, R.; Armstrong, L.; Shreenan, R. Combined high-density lidar and multispectral imagery for individual tree crown analysis. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2003, 29, 633–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Falkowski, M.J.; Smith, A.M.S.; Hudak, A.T.; Gessler, P.E.; Vierling, L.A.; Crookston, N.L. Automated estimation of individual conifer tree height and crown diameter via two-dimensional spatial wavelet analysis of lidar data. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2006, 32, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Falkowski, M.J.; Smith, A.M.S.; Gessler, P.E.; Hudak, A.T.; Vierling, L.A.; Evans, J.S. The influence of conifer forest canopy cover on the accuracy of two individual tree measurement algorithms using LiDAR data. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2008, 34, S338–S350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Parker, R.C.; Evans, D.L. An application of LiDAR in a double-sample forest inventory. West. J. Appl. Forestry 2004, 19, 95–101. [Google Scholar]
  66. Parker, R.C.; Evans, D.L. LiDAR forest inventory with single-tree, double-, and single-phase procedures. Int. J. For. Res. 2009. [CrossRef]
  67. Hollaus, M.; Wagner, W.; Eberhöfer, C.; Karel, W. Accuracy of large-scale canopy heights derived from LiDAR data under operational constraints in a complex alpine environment. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2006, 60, 323–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hollaus, M.; Dorigo, W.; Wagner, W.; Schadauer, K.; Höfle, B.; Maier, B. Operational wide-area stem volume estimation based on airborne laser scanning and national forest inventory data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2009, 30, 5159–5175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Andersen, H.E. Using airborne light detection and ranging (LIDAR) to characterize forest stand condition on the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska. West. J. Appl. Forestry 2009, 24, 95–102. [Google Scholar]
  70. Kim, S.; McGaughey, R.J.; Andersen, H.E.; Schreuder, G. Tree species differentiation using intensity data derived from leaf-on and leaf-off airborne laser scanner. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, 1575–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ørka, H.O.; Næsset, E.; Bollandsas, O.M. Classifying species of individual trees by intensity and structure features derived from airborne laser scanner data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, 1163–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dixon, Gary E. comp. Essential FVS: A User’s Guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2008.
  73. Hudak, A.T.; Evans, J.S.; Crookston, N.L.; Falkowski, M.J.; Steigers, B.; Taylor, R.; Hemingway, H. Aggregating pixel-level basal area predictions derived from LiDAR data to industrial forest stands in Idaho. In Third Forest Vegetation Simulator Conference Proceedings, Proceedings RMRS-P-54, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 13–15 February 2007; Havis, R.N., Crookston, N.L., Eds.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2008; pp. 133–146. [Google Scholar]
  74. Falkowski, M.J.; Evans, J.S.; Martinuzzi, S.; Gessler, P.E.; Hudak, A.T. Characterizing forest succession with lidar data: an evaluation for the Inland Northwest, USA. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, 946–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Falkowski, M.J.; Gessler, P.E.; Hudak, A.T.; Crookston, N.L.; Uebler, E. Landscape-scale parameterization of a tree-level forest growth model: a k-NN imputation approach incorporating LiDAR data. Can. J. For. Res. 2009, in press. [Google Scholar]
  76. Thomas, V.; Oliver, R.D.; Lim, K.; Woods, M. LiDAR and Weibull modeling of diameter and basal area. For. Chron. 2008, 84, 866–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bollandsås, O.M.; Hanssen, K.H.; Marthiniussen, S.; Næsset, E. Measures of spatial forest structure derived from airborne laser data are associated with natural regeneration patterns in an uneven-aged spruce forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 2008, 255, 953–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hopkinson, C.; Chasmer, L.; Hall, R.J. The uncertainty in conifer plantation growth prediction from multi-temporal lidar datasets. Remote Sens. Environ. 2008, 112, 1168–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Keane, R.E.; Gardner, J.L.; Schmidt, K.M.; Long, D.G.; Menakis, J.P.; Finney, M.A. Development of Input Spatial Data Layers for the FARSITE Fire Growth Model for the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Complex; USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-3; Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  80. Scott, J.H.; Reinhardt, E.D. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crown fire behavior; USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RMRS-RP-29; Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  81. Riaño, D.; Meier, E.; Allgower, B.; Chuvieco, E.; Ustin, S.L. Modeling airborne laser scanning data for the spatial generation of critical forest parameters in fire behavior modeling. Remote Sens. Environ. 2003, 86, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Seielstad, C.A.; Queen, L. Using airborne laser altimetry to determine fuel models for estimating fire behavior. J. For. 2003, 10–15. [Google Scholar]
  83. Riaño, D.; Chuvieco, E. Generation of crown bulk density for Pinus sylvestris from lidar. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 92, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Andersen, H.E.; McGaughey, R.J.; Reutebuch, S.E. Estimating forest canopy fuel parameters using lidar data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2005, 94, 441–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Jain, T.B.; Graham, R.T.; Sandquist, J.; Butler, M.; Brockus, K.; Frigard, D.; Cobb, D.; Sup-Han, H.; Halbrook, J.; Denner, R.; Evans, J.S. Restoration of northern Rocky Mountain moist forest: integrating fuel treatments from the site to the landscape. In Proceedings of the 2007 National Silviculture Workshop; USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-733. Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  86. Finney, M.A. FARSITE: Fire Area Simulator-model Development and Evaluation; USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RMRS-RP-4; Rocky Mountain Research Station: Ogden, UT, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  87. Albini, F.A. Estimating Wildfire Behavior and Effects; USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report GTR-INT-30; Rocky Mountain Research Station: Ogden, UT, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  88. Hiers, J.K.; O’Brien, J.J.; Mitchell, R.J.; Grego, J.M.; Loudermilk, E.L. The wildland fuel cell concept: an approach to characterize fine-scale variation in fuels and fire in frequently burned longleaf pine forests. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2007, 18, 315–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Loudermilk, E.L.; Hiers, J.K.; O’Brien, J.J.; Mitchell, R.J.; Singhania, A.; Fernandez, J.C.; Cropper, W.P., Jr.; Slatton, K.C. Ground-based LIDAR: a novel approach to quantify fine-scale fuelbed characteristics. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2009, 18, 676–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. MacArthur, R.H.; MacArthur, J.W. On bird species diversity. Ecology 1961, 42, 594–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Gottschalk, T.K.; Huettmann, F.; Ehlers, M. Thirty years of modeling avian habitat relationships using satellite imagery data: a review. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2005, 26, 2631–2656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Bradbury, R.B.; Hill, R.A.; Mason, D.C.; Hinsley, S.A.; Wilson, J.D.; Balzter, H.; Anderson, Q.A.; Whittingham, M.J.; Davenport, I.J.; Bellamy, P.E. Modeling relationships between birds and vegetation structure using airborne lidar data: a review with case studies from agricultural and woodland environments. Ibis 2005, 147, 443–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Martinuzzi, S.; Vierling, L.A.; Gould, W.A.; Falkowski, M.J.; Evans, J.S.; Hudak, A.T.; Vierling, K.T. Mapping snags and understory shrubs for a LiDAR-based assessment of wildlife habitat suitability. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, 2533–2546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Vierling, K.T.; Vierling, L.A.; Gould, W.A.; Martinuzzi, S.; Clawges, R.M. Lidar: shedding new light on habitat characterization and modeling. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2008, 6, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Hogg, A.R.; Holland, J. An evaluation of DEMs derived from LiDAR and photogrammetry for wetland mapping. For. Chron. 2008, 84, 840–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ritchie, J.C. Remote sensing applications to hydrology: airborne laser altimeters. Hydrolog. Sci. J. 1996, 41, 625–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. French, J.R. Airborne LiDAR in support of geomorphological and hydraulic modeling. Earth Surface Process. Landforms 2003, 28, 321–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Heritage, G.; Hetherington, D. Towards a protocol for laser scanning in fluvial geomorphology. Earth Surface Process. Landforms 2007, 32, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. McKean, J.A.; Roering, J. Objective landslide detection and surface morphology mapping using high-resolution airborne laser altimetry. Geomorphology 2004, 57, 331–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Glenn, N.F.; Streutker, D.R.; Chadwick, D.J.; Thackray, G.D.; Dorsch, S.J. Analysis of lidar-derived topographic information for characterizing and differentiating landslide morphology and activity. Geomorphology 2006, 73, 131–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Hopkinson, C.; Demuth, M.D. Using airborne LiDAR to assess the influence of glacier downwasting to water resources in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2006, 32, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Hopkinson, C.; Sitar, M.; Chasmer, L.E.; Treitz, P. Mapping snowpack depth beneath forest canopies using airborne LiDAR. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2004, 70, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Jones, J.L. Side channel mapping and fish habitat suitability analysis using lidar topography and orthophotography. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2006, 11, 1202–1206. [Google Scholar]
  104. McKean, J.A.; Isaak, D.J.; Wright, C.W. Geomorphic controls on salmon nesting patterns described by a new, narrow-beam terrestrial–aquatic lidar. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2008, 6, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Hudak, A.T.; Lefsky, M.A.; Cohen, W.B.; Berterretche, M. Integration of lidar and Landsat ETM+ data for estimating and mapping forest canopy height. Remote Sens. Environ. 2002, 82, 397–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Wulder, M.A.; Seemann, D. Forest inventory height update through the integration of lidar data with segmented Landsat imagery. Can. J. For. Res. 2003, 29, 536–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Wulder, M.A.; White, J.C.; Alvarez, F.; Han, T.; Rogan, J.; Hawkes, B. Characterizing boreal forest wildfire with multi-temporal Landsat and LIDAR data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, 1540–1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. McCombs, J.W.; Roberts, S.D. Influence of fusing lidar and multispectral imagery on remotely sensed estimates of stand density and mean tree height in a managed loblolly pine plantation. For. Sci. 2003, 49, 457–466. [Google Scholar]
  109. Holmgren, J.; Persson, A.; Soderman, U. Species identification of individual trees by combining high resolution LiDAR with multi-spectral images. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2008, 29, 1537–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Jensen, J.L.R.; Humes, K.S.; Vierling, L.A.; Hudak, A.T. Discrete return lidar-based prediction of leaf area index in two conifer forests. Remote Sens. Environ. 2008, 112, 3947–3957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Chen, S.X.; Vierling, L.A.; Rowell, E.; DeFelice, T. Using lidar and effective LAI data to evaluate IKONOS and Landsat 7 ETM+ vegetation cover estimates in a ponderosa pine forest. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 91, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Clawges, R.; Vierling, K.; Vierling, L.; Rowell, E. The use of airborne lidar to assess avian species diversity, density, and occurrence in a pine/aspen forest. Remote Sens. Environ. 2008, 112, 2064–2073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Lucas, R.M.; Lee, A.C.; Bunting, P.J. Retrieving forest biomass through integration of CASI and LiDAR data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2008, 29, 1553–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Asner, G.P.; Knapp, D.E.; Kennedy-Bowdoin, T.; Jones, M.O.; Martin, R.E.; Boardman, J.; Hughes, R.F. Invasive species detection in Hawaiian rainforests using airborne imaging spectroscopy and LiDAR. Remote Sens. Environ. 2008, 112, 1942–1955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Varga, T.A.; Asner, G.P. Hyperspectral and lidar remote sensing of fire fuels in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Ecol. Appl. 2008, 18, 613–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Hyde, P.; Dubayah, R.; Walker, W.; Blair, J.B.; Hofton, M.; Hunsaker, C. Mapping forest structure for wildlife habitat analysis using multi-sensor (lidar, SAR/InSAR, ETM+, Quickbird) synergy. Remote Sens. Environ. 2006, 102, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Hyde, P.; Nelson, R.; Kimes, D.; Levine, E. Exploring LiDAR–RaDAR synergy—predicting aboveground biomass in a southwestern ponderosa pine forest using LiDAR, SAR and InSAR. Remote Sens. Environ. 2007, 106, 397–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Huang, S.; Hager, S.A.; Halligan, K.Q.; Fairweather, I.S.; Swanson, A.K.; Crabtree, R.L. A comparison of individual tree and forest plot height derived from Lidar and InSAR. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2009, 75, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Sexton, J.O.; Bax, T.; Siqueira, P.; Swenson, J.J.; Hensley, S. A comparison of lidar, radar, and field measurements of canopy height in pine and hardwood forests of southeastern North America. For. Ecol. Manage. 2009, 257, 1136–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Boudreau, J.; Nelson, R.F.; Margolis, H.A.; Beaudoin, A.; Guindon, L.; Kimes, D.S. Regional aboveground forest biomass using airborne and spaceborne LiDAR in Quebec. Remote Sens. Environ. 2008, 112, 3876–3890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Streutker, D.; Glenn, N. LiDAR measurement of sagebrush steppe vegetation heights. Remote Sens. Environ. 2006, 102, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Chauve, A.; Vega, C.; Durrieu, S.; Bretar, F.; Allouis, T.; Pierrot Deseilligny, M.; Puech, W. Advanced full-waveform lidar data echo detection: assessing quality of derived terrain and tree height models in an alpine coniferous forest. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2009, 30, 5211–5228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Garrity, S.R.; Vierling, L.A.; Smith, A.M.S.; Falkowski, M.J.; Hann, D.B. Automatic detection of shrub location, crown area, and cover using spatial wavelet analysis and aerial photography. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2008, 34, S376–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Bork, E.W.; Su, J.G. Integrating LIDAR data and multispectral imagery for enhanced classification of rangeland vegetation: a meta analysis. Remote Sens. Environ. 2007, 111, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hudak, A.T.; Evans, J.S.; Stuart Smith, A.M. LiDAR Utility for Natural Resource Managers. Remote Sens. 2009, 1, 934-951. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs1040934

AMA Style

Hudak AT, Evans JS, Stuart Smith AM. LiDAR Utility for Natural Resource Managers. Remote Sensing. 2009; 1(4):934-951. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs1040934

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hudak, Andrew Thomas, Jeffrey Scott Evans, and Alistair Matthew Stuart Smith. 2009. "LiDAR Utility for Natural Resource Managers" Remote Sensing 1, no. 4: 934-951. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs1040934

APA Style

Hudak, A. T., Evans, J. S., & Stuart Smith, A. M. (2009). LiDAR Utility for Natural Resource Managers. Remote Sensing, 1(4), 934-951. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs1040934

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop