Assessment of the influence of flying altitude and scan angle on biophysical vegetation products derived from airborne laser scanning

Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) has been established as a valuable tool for the estimation of biophysical vegetation properties such as tree height, crown width, fractional cover and leaf area index (LAI). It is expected that the conditions of data acquisition, such as viewing geometry and sensor configuration influence the value of these parameters. In order to gain knowledge about these different conditions, we test for the sensitivity of vegetation products for viewing geometry, namely flying altitude and scanning (incidence) angle. Based on two methodologies for single tree extraction and derivation of fractional cover and LAI previously developed and published by our group, we evaluate how these variables change with either flying altitude or scanning angle. These are the two parameters which often need to be optimized towards the best compromise between point density and area covered with a single flight line, in order to reduce acquisition costs. Our test‐site in the Swiss National Park was sampled with two nominal flying altitudes, 500 and 900 m above ground. Incidence angle and local incidence angle were computed based on the digital terrain model using a simple backward geocoding procedure. We divided the raw laser returns into several different incident angle classes based on the flight path data; the TopoSys Falcon II system used in this study has a maximum scan angle of ±7.15°. We compared the derived biophysical properties from each of these classes with field measurements based on tachymeter measurements and hemispherical photographs, which were geolocated using differential GPS. It was found that with increasing flying height the well‐known underestimation of tree height increases. A similar behaviour can be observed for fractional cover; its respective values decrease with higher flying height. The minimum distance between first and last echo increases from 1.2 metres for 500 m AGL to more than 3 metres for 900 m AGL, which does alter return statistics. The behaviour for incidence angles is not so evident, probably due to the small scanning angle of the system used. fCover seems to be most affected by incidence angles, with significantly higher differences for locations further away from nadir. As expected, incidence angle appears to be of higher importance for vegetation density parameters than local incidence angle.

[1]  J. Hyyppä,et al.  Automatic detection of harvested trees and determination of forest growth using airborne laser scanning , 2004 .

[2]  Mikko Inkinen,et al.  A segmentation-based method to retrieve stem volume estimates from 3-D tree height models produced by laser scanners , 2001, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[3]  K. Itten,et al.  LIDAR-based geometric reconstruction of boreal type forest stands at single tree level for forest and wildland fire management , 2004 .

[4]  M. Lefsky,et al.  Laser altimeter canopy height profiles: methods and validation for closed-canopy, broadleaf forests , 2001 .

[5]  Håkan Olsson,et al.  Simulating the effects of lidar scanning angle for estimation of mean tree height and canopy closure , 2003 .

[6]  M. Dobbertin,et al.  Tree mortality in an unmanaged mountain pine (Pinus mugo var. uncinata) stand in the Swiss National Park impacted by root rot fungi , 2001 .

[7]  K. Itten,et al.  Radiative transfer modeling within a heterogeneous canopy for estimation of forest fire fuel properties , 2004 .

[8]  S. T. Gower,et al.  Leaf area index of boreal forests: theory, techniques, and measurements , 1997 .

[9]  W. Cohen,et al.  Lidar Remote Sensing of the Canopy Structure and Biophysical Properties of Douglas-Fir Western Hemlock Forests , 1999 .

[10]  Laura Chasmer,et al.  Investigating laser pulse penetration through a conifer canopy by integrating airborne and terrestrial lidar , 2006 .

[11]  E. Næsset,et al.  Estimating tree heights and number of stems in young forest stands using airborne laser scanner data , 2001 .

[12]  P. Stenberg,et al.  A method to account for shoot scale clumping in coniferous canopy reflectance models , 2003 .

[13]  Laura Chasmer,et al.  Towards a universal lidar canopy height indicator , 2006 .

[14]  J. A. Tullis,et al.  An Evaluation of Lidar-derived Elevation and Terrain Slope in Leaf-off Conditions , 2005 .

[15]  Åsa Persson,et al.  Detecting and measuring individual trees using an airborne laser scanner , 2002 .

[16]  N. Coops,et al.  Using airborne and ground-based ranging lidar to measure canopy structure in Australian forests , 2003 .

[17]  W. Wagner,et al.  Gaussian decomposition and calibration of a novel small-footprint full-waveform digitising airborne laser scanner , 2006 .

[18]  J. Means,et al.  Predicting forest stand characteristics with airborne scanning lidar , 2000 .

[19]  J. Hyyppä,et al.  OPTIMIZATION OF THE SCANNING ANGLE FOR COUNTRYWIDE LASER SCANNING , 2005 .

[20]  M. Weissa,et al.  Review of methods for in situ leaf area index ( LAI ) determination Part II . Estimation of LAI , errors and sampling , 2003 .

[21]  K. Itten,et al.  Estimation of LAI and fractional cover from small footprint airborne laser scanning data based on gap fraction , 2006 .

[22]  R. Hill,et al.  Quantifying canopy height underestimation by laser pulse penetration in small-footprint airborne laser scanning data , 2003 .

[23]  Erik Næsset,et al.  Effects of different flying altitudes on biophysical stand properties estimated from canopy height and density measured with a small-footprint airborne scanning laser , 2004 .