A Comparison of Three Airborne Laser Scanner Types for Species Identification of Individual Trees
Species identification is a critical factor for obtaining accurate forest inventories. This paper compares the same method of tree species identification (at the individual crown level) across three different types of airborne laser scanning systems (ALS): two linear lidar systems (monospectral and...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-12-01
|
| Series: | Sensors |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/22/1/35 |
| _version_ | 1797497651217825792 |
|---|---|
| author | Jean-François Prieur Benoît St-Onge Richard A. Fournier Murray E. Woods Parvez Rana Daniel Kneeshaw |
| author_facet | Jean-François Prieur Benoît St-Onge Richard A. Fournier Murray E. Woods Parvez Rana Daniel Kneeshaw |
| author_sort | Jean-François Prieur |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Species identification is a critical factor for obtaining accurate forest inventories. This paper compares the same method of tree species identification (at the individual crown level) across three different types of airborne laser scanning systems (ALS): two linear lidar systems (monospectral and multispectral) and one single-photon lidar (SPL) system to ascertain whether current individual tree crown (ITC) species classification methods are applicable across all sensors. SPL is a new type of sensor that promises comparable point densities from higher flight altitudes, thereby increasing lidar coverage. Initial results indicate that the methods are indeed applicable across all of the three sensor types with broadly similar overall accuracies (Hardwood/Softwood, 83–90%; 12 species, 46–54%; 4 species, 68–79%), with SPL being slightly lower in all cases. The additional intensity features that are provided by multispectral ALS appear to be more beneficial to overall accuracy than the higher point density of SPL. We also demonstrate the potential contribution of lidar time-series data in improving classification accuracy (Hardwood/Softwood, 91%; 12 species, 58%; 4 species, 84%). Possible causes for lower SPL accuracy are (a) differences in the nature of the intensity features and (b) differences in first and second return distributions between the two linear systems and SPL. We also show that segmentation (and field-identified training crowns deriving from segmentation) that is performed on an initial dataset can be used on subsequent datasets with similar overall accuracy. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare these three types of ALS systems for species identification at the individual tree level. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T03:23:17Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-99cf78427fc945fd9df30841ff0bc03e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1424-8220 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T03:23:17Z |
| publishDate | 2021-12-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Sensors |
| spelling | doaj.art-99cf78427fc945fd9df30841ff0bc03e2023-11-23T12:15:52ZengMDPI AGSensors1424-82202021-12-012213510.3390/s22010035A Comparison of Three Airborne Laser Scanner Types for Species Identification of Individual TreesJean-François Prieur0Benoît St-Onge1Richard A. Fournier2Murray E. Woods3Parvez Rana4Daniel Kneeshaw5Département de Géomatique Appliquée, Centre d’Applications et de Recherches en Télédétection (CARTEL), Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC J1K 2R1, CanadaGeophoton Inc., Montreal, QC H3X 2T3, CanadaDépartement de Géomatique Appliquée, Centre d’Applications et de Recherches en Télédétection (CARTEL), Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC J1K 2R1, CanadaMinistry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry (Retired), North Bay, ON P1B 8G3, CanadaNatural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE), P.O. Box 413, FI-90014 Oulu, FinlandDépartement des Sciences Biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, QC H2L 2C4, CanadaSpecies identification is a critical factor for obtaining accurate forest inventories. This paper compares the same method of tree species identification (at the individual crown level) across three different types of airborne laser scanning systems (ALS): two linear lidar systems (monospectral and multispectral) and one single-photon lidar (SPL) system to ascertain whether current individual tree crown (ITC) species classification methods are applicable across all sensors. SPL is a new type of sensor that promises comparable point densities from higher flight altitudes, thereby increasing lidar coverage. Initial results indicate that the methods are indeed applicable across all of the three sensor types with broadly similar overall accuracies (Hardwood/Softwood, 83–90%; 12 species, 46–54%; 4 species, 68–79%), with SPL being slightly lower in all cases. The additional intensity features that are provided by multispectral ALS appear to be more beneficial to overall accuracy than the higher point density of SPL. We also demonstrate the potential contribution of lidar time-series data in improving classification accuracy (Hardwood/Softwood, 91%; 12 species, 58%; 4 species, 84%). Possible causes for lower SPL accuracy are (a) differences in the nature of the intensity features and (b) differences in first and second return distributions between the two linear systems and SPL. We also show that segmentation (and field-identified training crowns deriving from segmentation) that is performed on an initial dataset can be used on subsequent datasets with similar overall accuracy. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare these three types of ALS systems for species identification at the individual tree level.https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/22/1/35airborne lidartree species identificationmultispectral lidarsingle photon lidarRandom Forestfeature selection |
| spellingShingle | Jean-François Prieur Benoît St-Onge Richard A. Fournier Murray E. Woods Parvez Rana Daniel Kneeshaw A Comparison of Three Airborne Laser Scanner Types for Species Identification of Individual Trees Sensors airborne lidar tree species identification multispectral lidar single photon lidar Random Forest feature selection |
| title | A Comparison of Three Airborne Laser Scanner Types for Species Identification of Individual Trees |
| title_full | A Comparison of Three Airborne Laser Scanner Types for Species Identification of Individual Trees |
| title_fullStr | A Comparison of Three Airborne Laser Scanner Types for Species Identification of Individual Trees |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of Three Airborne Laser Scanner Types for Species Identification of Individual Trees |
| title_short | A Comparison of Three Airborne Laser Scanner Types for Species Identification of Individual Trees |
| title_sort | comparison of three airborne laser scanner types for species identification of individual trees |
| topic | airborne lidar tree species identification multispectral lidar single photon lidar Random Forest feature selection |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/22/1/35 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jeanfrancoisprieur acomparisonofthreeairbornelaserscannertypesforspeciesidentificationofindividualtrees AT benoitstonge acomparisonofthreeairbornelaserscannertypesforspeciesidentificationofindividualtrees AT richardafournier acomparisonofthreeairbornelaserscannertypesforspeciesidentificationofindividualtrees AT murrayewoods acomparisonofthreeairbornelaserscannertypesforspeciesidentificationofindividualtrees AT parvezrana acomparisonofthreeairbornelaserscannertypesforspeciesidentificationofindividualtrees AT danielkneeshaw acomparisonofthreeairbornelaserscannertypesforspeciesidentificationofindividualtrees AT jeanfrancoisprieur comparisonofthreeairbornelaserscannertypesforspeciesidentificationofindividualtrees AT benoitstonge comparisonofthreeairbornelaserscannertypesforspeciesidentificationofindividualtrees AT richardafournier comparisonofthreeairbornelaserscannertypesforspeciesidentificationofindividualtrees AT murrayewoods comparisonofthreeairbornelaserscannertypesforspeciesidentificationofindividualtrees AT parvezrana comparisonofthreeairbornelaserscannertypesforspeciesidentificationofindividualtrees AT danielkneeshaw comparisonofthreeairbornelaserscannertypesforspeciesidentificationofindividualtrees |