Biomass estimation from simulated GEDI, ICESat-2 and NISAR across environmental gradients in Sonoma County, California

Abstract Estimates of the magnitude and distribution of aboveground carbon in Earth's forests remain uncertain, yet knowledge of forest carbon content at a global scale is critical for forest management in support of climate mitigation. In light of this knowledge gap, several upcoming spaceborne missions aim to map forest aboveground biomass, and many new biomass products are expected from these datasets. As these new missions host different technologies, each with relative strengths and weaknesses for biomass retrieval, as well as different spatial resolutions, consistently comparing or combining biomass estimates from these new datasets will be challenging. This paper presents a demonstration of an inter-comparison of biomass estimates from simulations of three NASA missions (GEDI, ICESat-2 and NISAR) over Sonoma county in California, USA. We use a high resolution, locally calibrated airborne lidar map as our reference dataset, and emphasize the importance of considering uncertainties in both reference maps and spaceborne estimates when conducting biomass product validation. GEDI and ICESat-2 were simulated from airborne lidar point clouds, while UAVSAR's L-band backscatter was used as a proxy for NISAR. To estimate biomass for the lidar missions we used GEDI's footprint-level biomass algorithms, and also adapted these for application to ICESat-2. For UAVSAR, we developed a locally trained biomass model, calibrated against the ALS reference map. Each mission simulation was evaluated in comparison to the local reference map at its native product resolution (25 m, 100 m transect, and 1 ha) yielding RMSEs of 57%, 75%, and 89% for GEDI, NISAR, and ICESat-2 respectively. RMSE values increased for GEDI's power beam during simulated daytime conditions (64%), coverage beam during nighttime conditions (72%), and coverage beam daytime conditions (87%). We also test the application of GEDI's biomass modeling framework for estimation of biomass from ICESat-2, and find that ICESat-2 yields reasonable biomass estimates, particularly in relatively short, open canopies. Results suggest that while all three missions will produce datasets useful for biomass mapping, tall, dense canopies such as those found in Sonoma County present the greatest challenges for all three missions, while steep slopes also prove challenging for single-date SAR-based biomass retrievals. Our methods provide guidance for the inter-comparison and validation of spaceborne biomass estimates through the use of airborne lidar reference maps, and could be repeated with on-orbit estimates in any area with high quality field plot and ALS data. These methods allow for regional interpretations and filtering of multi-mission biomass estimates toward improved wall-to-wall biomass maps through data fusion.

[1]  Göran Ståhl,et al.  Statistical properties of hybrid estimators proposed for GEDI—NASA’s global ecosystem dynamics investigation , 2019, Environmental Research Letters.

[2]  Sassan Saatchi,et al.  Upscaling Forest Biomass from Field to Satellite Measurements: Sources of Errors and Ways to Reduce Them , 2019, Surveys in Geophysics.

[3]  R. Houghton,et al.  Characterizing 3D vegetation structure from space: Mission requirements , 2011 .

[4]  I. Woodhouse,et al.  Using satellite radar backscatter to predict above‐ground woody biomass: A consistent relationship across four different African landscapes , 2009 .

[5]  S. Goetz,et al.  Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps , 2012 .

[6]  Klaus Scipal,et al.  In Situ Reference Datasets From the TropiSAR and AfriSAR Campaigns in Support of Upcoming Spaceborne Biomass Missions , 2018, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing.

[7]  Christiane Schmullius,et al.  Influence of Surface Topography on ICESat/GLAS Forest Height Estimation and Waveform Shape , 2012, Remote. Sens..

[8]  M. Herold,et al.  The Importance of Consistent Global Forest Aboveground Biomass Product Validation , 2019, Surveys in Geophysics.

[9]  George C. Hurtt,et al.  County-scale biomass map comparison: a case study for Sonoma, California , 2017 .

[10]  J. Blair,et al.  Modeling laser altimeter return waveforms over complex vegetation using high‐resolution elevation data , 1999 .

[11]  R. Dubayah,et al.  Sensitivity of large-footprint lidar to canopy structure and biomass in a neotropical rainforest , 2002 .

[12]  M. Honzak,et al.  Tropical Forest Biomass Density Estimation Using JERS-1 SAR: Seasonal Variation, Confidence Limits, and Application to Image Mosaics , 1998 .

[13]  Qi Chen Retrieving vegetation height of forests and woodlands over mountainous areas in the Pacific Coast region using satellite laser altimetry , 2010 .

[14]  D. Clark,et al.  Tropical forest biomass estimation and the fallacy of misplaced concreteness , 2012 .

[15]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  Global Carbon Budget 2018 , 2014, Earth System Science Data.

[16]  Kristofer Johnson,et al.  CMS: LiDAR-derived Biomass, Canopy Height and Cover, Sonoma County, California, 2013 , 2017 .

[17]  R. B. Jackson,et al.  A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests , 2011, Science.

[18]  Amy L. Neuenschwander,et al.  The ATL08 land and vegetation product for the ICESat-2 Mission , 2019, Remote Sensing of Environment.

[19]  B. Nelson,et al.  Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees , 2014, Global change biology.

[20]  Reviews and syntheses: An empirical spatiotemporal description of the global surface–atmosphere carbon fluxes: opportunities and data limitations , 2017 .

[21]  Marc Simard,et al.  Radiometric Correction of Airborne Radar Images Over Forested Terrain With Topography , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[22]  S. Goetz,et al.  A meta-analysis of terrestrial aboveground biomass estimation using lidar remote sensing , 2013 .

[23]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  Global Carbon Budget 2017 (in open review for Earth System Science Data). doi: 10.5194/essd-2017-123 , 2017 .

[24]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Measurement of fine-spatial-resolution 3D vegetation structure with airborne waveform lidar: Calibration and validation with voxelised terrestrial lidar , 2017 .

[25]  Philip Lewis,et al.  A threshold insensitive method for locating the forest canopy top with waveform lidar , 2011 .

[26]  Sassan Saatchi,et al.  Local validation of global biomass maps , 2019, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinformation.

[27]  W. Salas,et al.  Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  Victoria C. Barclay,et al.  Partitioning Regulatory Mechanisms of Within-Host Malaria Dynamics Using the Effective Propagation Number , 2011, Science.

[29]  Richard M. Lucas,et al.  A Python-Based Open Source System for Geographic Object-Based Image Analysis (GEOBIA) Utilizing Raster Attribute Tables , 2014, Remote. Sens..

[30]  Wenli Huang,et al.  Implications of allometric model selection for county-level biomass mapping , 2017, Carbon Balance and Management.

[31]  Xiaoli Sun,et al.  The GEDI Simulator: A Large‐Footprint Waveform Lidar Simulator for Calibration and Validation of Spaceborne Missions , 2019, Earth and space science.

[32]  Yunjin Kim,et al.  An update on the NASA-ISRO dual-frequency DBF SAR (NISAR) mission , 2016, 2016 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS).

[33]  R. B. Jackson,et al.  The Structure, Distribution, and Biomass of the World's Forests , 2013 .

[34]  Scott J. Goetz,et al.  The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation: High-resolution laser ranging of the Earth’s forests and topography , 2020, Science of Remote Sensing.

[35]  Michael A. Wulder,et al.  Estimating forest canopy height and terrain relief from GLAS waveform metrics , 2010 .

[36]  Suming Jin,et al.  Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States – Representing a Decade of Land Cover Change Information , 2015 .

[37]  Xiaoli Sun,et al.  Gaussian approximation versus nearly exact performance analysis of optical communication systems with PPM signaling and APD receivers , 1988, IEEE Trans. Commun..

[38]  Lori A. Magruder,et al.  The Potential Impact of Vertical Sampling Uncertainty on ICESat-2/ATLAS Terrain and Canopy Height Retrievals for Multiple Ecosystems , 2016, Remote. Sens..

[39]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change , 2012 .

[40]  Sassan Saatchi,et al.  Sensitivity of L-Band SAR Backscatter to Aboveground Biomass of Global Forests , 2016, Remote. Sens..