Evaluating the capacity of single photon lidar for terrain characterization under a range of forest conditions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Accurate digital elevation models are key data products used to inform forest management. Light detection and ranging (lidar) technologies have emerged as a useful tool for acquiring detailed terrain information, although the accuracy of this data is known to vary with topographic complexity and the density and characteristics of overlying vegetation. Single Photon Lidar (SPL) provides a high-density point cloud that can be acquired from a much higher altitude than discrete return, small-footprint lidar (hereafter, linear-mode lidar or LML), providing efficiencies and potential cost savings for operational mapping programs. Herein, we assess the absolute and relative accuracies of leaf-on and leaf-off SPL data acquired at different altitudes for characterizing terrain under varying vegetation types and densities and compare to results for LML data. Our assessment was forest-focused and primarily point based, using 299 Real-Time Kinematic survey checkpoints to quantify elevation errors (Δh); however, we also investigated and reported accuracy for linear transects, and conducted a wall-to-wall comparison of the SPL-derived 1-m digital elevation models (DEMs) against an LML-derived DEM. Point cloud characteristics for the leaf-on 2018 SPL data were markedly different, with 88% of returns as first returns, compared to 17% for the LML, and 59% and 46% for the leaf-off SPL data acquired at 3800 m and 2000 m, respectively. Of the datasets considered herein, the SPL data acquired under leaf-on conditions in 2018 had the lowest accuracy and precision for characterizing terrain underneath vegetation cover, with an RMSE of 10.97 cm and a 95th quantile of 24.03 cm; however these values are within commonly accepted error limits for elevation products. The leaf-off SPL data were most accurate overall; however, the differences between the leaf-off SPL data acquired at 3800 m versus 2000 m were often minor (< 1 cm on average), with similar patterns in Δh between the two datasets (r = 0.8). In terms of the relative performance of the lidar datasets examined, results from the analyses of linear transects were similar to those of the checkpoints, but highlighted the variability in elevation accuracy within similar cover types. Wall-to-wall comparisons of the SPL-derived DEMs to the 2012 LML DEM also corroborated the results of the checkpoint assessment, with the 2018 SPL leaf-on DEM having the largest differences (mean difference = 7.44 cm; RMSD = 18.07 cm). Differences between DEMs did not trend consistently with increasing canopy cover or with the percentage of returns that were within ±15 cm of the ground surface. We found that it was not only the density of the vegetation, but also the composition and configuration of both the overstory and understory vegetation that influenced the accuracy with which the lidar characterized the terrain surface. Overall, our results indicated that leaf-on SPL is capable of capturing terrain information under a wide variety of forest and vegetation conditions, albeit at a lower accuracy than what is possible with leaf-on LML or leaf-off SPL, but at a level of accuracy that is within acceptable limits for most forest applications.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».