A Comparison of Two Open Source LiDAR Surface Classification Algorithms

With the progression of LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) towards a mainstream resource management tool, it has become necessary to understand how best to process and analyze the data. While most ground surface identification algorithms remain proprietary and have high purchase costs; a few are openly available, free to use, and are supported by published results. Two of the latter are the multiscale curvature classification and the Boise Center Aerospace Laboratory LiDAR (BCAL) algorithms. This study investigated the accuracy of these two algorithms (and a combination of the two) to create a digital terrain model from a raw LiDAR point cloud in a semi-arid landscape. Accuracy of each algorithm was assessed via comparison with >7,000 high precision survey points stratified across six different cover types. The overall performance of both algorithms differed by only 2%; however, within specific cover types significant differences were observed in accuracy. The results highlight the accuracy of both algorithms across a variety of vegetation types, and ultimately suggest specific scenarios where one approach may outperform the other. Each algorithm produced similar results except in the ceanothus and conifer cover types where BCAL produced lower errors.

[1]  Andrew T. Hudak,et al.  Discrete return lidar-based prediction of leaf area index in two conifer forests , 2008 .

[2]  Andrew Thomas Hudak,et al.  A Multiscale Curvature Algorithm for Classifying Discrete Return LiDAR in Forested Environments , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[3]  Juha Hyyppä,et al.  FACTORS AFFECTING THE QUALITY OF DTM GENERATION IN FORESTED AREAS , 2005 .

[4]  Alistair M. S. Smith,et al.  Discrete Return Lidar in Natural Resources: Recommendations for Project Planning, Data Processing, and Deliverables , 2009, Remote. Sens..

[5]  D. Marks,et al.  Radiative transfer modeling of a coniferous canopy characterized by airborne remote sensing , 2008 .

[6]  W. W. Carson,et al.  Accuracy of a high-resolution lidar terrain model under a conifer forest canopy , 2003 .

[7]  Temuulen Tsagaan Sankey,et al.  LiDAR-Based Classification of Sagebrush Community Types , 2011 .

[8]  M. Hodgson,et al.  An evaluation of LIDAR- and IFSAR-derived digital elevation models in leaf-on conditions with USGS Level 1 and Level 2 DEMs , 2003 .

[9]  Stuart P. Hardegree,et al.  Vegetation and slope effects on accuracy of a LiDAR-derived DEM in the sagebrush steppe , 2011 .

[10]  Jessica J. Mitchell,et al.  Errors in LiDAR-derived shrub height and crown area on sloped terrain , 2011 .

[11]  Astrid Lambrecht,et al.  On the potential of very high-resolution repeat DEMs in glacial and periglacial environments , 2010 .

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

[13]  J. Shan,et al.  Topographic laser ranging and scanning : principles and processing , 2008 .

[14]  W. Wagner,et al.  Accuracy of large-scale canopy heights derived from LiDAR data under operational constraints in a complex alpine environment , 2006 .

[15]  A. Hudak,et al.  Nearest neighbor imputation of species-level, plot-scale forest structure attributes from LiDAR data , 2008 .

[16]  N. Glenn,et al.  LiDAR measurement of sagebrush steppe vegetation heights , 2006 .

[17]  E. Anderson,et al.  LIDAR density and linear interpolator effects on elevation estimates , 2005 .

[18]  P. Gessler,et al.  Regression modeling and mapping of coniferous forest basal area and tree density from discrete-return lidar and multispectral satellite data , 2006 .

[19]  Q. Guo,et al.  Effects of Topographic Variability and Lidar Sampling Density on Several DEM Interpolation Methods , 2010 .

[20]  J. R. Jensen.  Remote Sensing of the Environment: An Earth Resource Perspective , 2000 .

[21]  Edward W. Bork,et al.  Influence of Vegetation, Slope, and Lidar Sampling Angle on DEM Accuracy , 2006 .

[22]  Paul A. Longley,et al.  The Importance of Understanding Error in Lidar Digital Elevation Models , 2004 .

[23]  Gregory P. Asner,et al.  Tropical forest carbon assessment: integrating satellite and airborne mapping approaches , 2009 .

[24]  Emmanuel P. Baltsavias,et al.  Airborne laser scanning: existing systems and firms and other resources , 1999 .

[25]  A. Hudak,et al.  Mapping snags and understory shrubs for a LiDAR-based assessment of wildlife habitat suitability , 2009 .

[26]  P. Bates,et al.  Integration of high-resolution topographic data with floodplain flow models. , 2000 .

[27]  P. Gessler,et al.  Forest Service-- National AgroforestryCenter 1-1-2010 Landscape-scale parameterization of a tree-level forest growth model : a k-nearest neighbor imputation approach incorporating LiDAR data , 2013 .

[28]  Nicholas C. Coops,et al.  Evaluating error associated with lidar-derived DEM interpolation , 2009, Comput. Geosci..

[29]  P. Gessler,et al.  Characterizing forest succession with lidar data: An evaluation for the Inland Northwest, USA , 2009 .

[30]  M. Hodgson,et al.  Accuracy of Airborne Lidar-Derived Elevation: Empirical Assessment and Error Budget , 2004 .