Comparing voxelisation methods of 3D terrestrial laser scanning with Radiative Transfer simulation to assess vegetation density
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) measurements are increasingly used to characterize forest structure, because of their high potential to provide accurate information on some key structural features that are hard to measure in the field, e.g. tree height, crown dimensions, stem shape or the 3D distribution of vegetation material. The later is of great interest as it plays a major role in many ecological processes and influences both productivity and biodiversity. Used within radiative transfer models, this feature is also useful to improve our understanding on how the signal interacts with vegetation in remote sensing studies, thereby enhancing our ability to analyze remote sensing data for forest ecosystem monitoring purposes. However to be used either in ecological models or in remote sensing studies, very dense point clouds acquired using TLS must be processed and synthesized in order to become usable by foresters or in models. To that aim many approaches have been developed. Some of them seek to identify and characterize the several parts of the trees, e.g. the stems, the main branches, the crowns... Others, like voxel-based approaches, provide information for spatial units irrespective of the trees, e.g. voxels or plots. This presentation focus on voxel-based approaches used to estimate the distribution of vegetation density material in a 3D grid (also referred as voxelization ) from single or multi echo TLS data. Different methods have been proposed (Hosoi and Omasa, 2006; Beland et al., 2014; Durrieu et al., 2008; Beland et al., 2011), but further studies are needed to validate these approaches and better characterize their limits and their sensitivity to instrument settings, vegetation characteristics and voxel geometric features (size, geometry) or other methodological choices made to compute vegetation density. Using a modeling approach to that aim is highly beneficial because it allows testing many configurations and does not require, at least for a theoretical validation, to acquire reference data on the actual 3D distribution of the vegetation from field surveys, which is highly challenging.\nThe objective of this study was threefold: (1) to develop a simulation framework to simulate TLS data based on DART (Discrete Anisotropic Radiative Transfer) model (Gastellu-Etchegorry et al.,2004), whose capabilities make it highly suitable for the purpose of this study, (2) to propose an improved voxelisation approach suitable for processing multi-echoes TLS data sets, and (3) to validate this approach and propose a series of guidelines to retrieve, from TLS data of a forest stand, 3D vegetation density and LAI into a voxelized space. To achieve this last objective a sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of several parameters on voxelisation results. Firstly, three voxel attributes were analysed, namely their shape (cubic versus spherical), dimensions and sampling rate. Secondly, instrumental parameters were analysed to determine suitable scanner angular resolution and the benefit of processing multiple TLS returns. Thirdly, the influence of two vegetation attributes, size and angular distribution of leaves, were evaluated. Lastly, the resulting guidelines were applied to a more practical case involving real trees to provide a reliable assessment of the accuracy of vegetation densities that can be achieved from voxelisation approaches. Results show a general good agreement (r2 > 0.8 for realistic trees) with multi echo management, while the use of single returns only leads to an overestimation of leaf density. Theoretical cases show that cubic voxels gives best results overall, with RMSE increase from 0.05 to 0.3 with incerasing leaves size or voxel dimensions when there is no clumping effect inside the voxels, and a good voxel sampling.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».