Local discrepancies in continental scale biomass maps: a case study over forested and non-forested landscapes in Maryland, USA

BackgroundContinental-scale aboveground biomass maps are increasingly available, but their estimates vary widely, particularly at high resolution. A comprehensive understanding of map discrepancies is required to improve their effectiveness in carbon accounting and local decision-making. To this end, we compare four continental-scale maps with a recent high-resolution lidar-derived biomass map over Maryland, USA. We conduct detailed comparisons at pixel-, county-, and state-level.ResultsSpatial patterns of biomass are broadly consistent in all maps, but there are large differences at fine scales (RMSD 48.5–92.7 Mg ha−1). Discrepancies reduce with aggregation and the agreement among products improves at the county level. However, continental scale maps exhibit residual negative biases in mean (33.0–54.6 Mg ha−1) and total biomass (3.5–5.8 Tg) when compared to the high-resolution lidar biomass map. Three of the four continental scale maps reach near-perfect agreement at ~4 km and onward but do not converge with the high-resolution biomass map even at county scale. At the State level, these maps underestimate biomass by 30–80 Tg in forested and 40–50 Tg in non-forested areas.ConclusionsLocal discrepancies in continental scale biomass maps are caused by factors including data inputs, modeling approaches, forest/non-forest definitions and time lags. There is a net underestimation over high biomass forests and non-forested areas that could impact carbon accounting at all levels. Local, high-resolution lidar-derived biomass maps provide a valuable bottom-up reference to improve the analysis and interpretation of large-scale maps produced in carbon monitoring systems.

[1]  C. Woodall,et al.  Imputing forest carbon stock estimates from inventory plots to a nationally continuous coverage , 2013, Carbon Balance and Management.

[2]  S. Goetz,et al.  Uncertainty in the spatial distribution of tropical forest biomass: a comparison of pan-tropical maps , 2013, Carbon Balance and Management.

[3]  A. Lister,et al.  A nearest-neighbor imputation approach to mapping tree species over large areas using forest inventory plots and moderate resolution raster data , 2012 .

[4]  Scott J. Goetz,et al.  The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) Lidar , 2014 .

[5]  Kristofer D. Johnson,et al.  Integrating LIDAR and forest inventories to fill the trees outside forests data gap , 2015, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.

[6]  M. Herold,et al.  Mapping biomass with remote sensing: a comparison of methods for the case study of Uganda , 2011, Carbon balance and management.

[7]  Richard A. Houghton,et al.  The spatial distribution of forest biomass in the Brazilian Amazon: a comparison of estimates , 2001 .

[8]  M. D. Nelson,et al.  Mapping U.S. forest biomass using nationwide forest inventory data and moderate resolution information , 2008 .

[9]  Keith C. Pelletier,et al.  An object-based system for LiDAR data fusion and feature extraction , 2013 .

[10]  D. Lu The potential and challenge of remote sensing‐based biomass estimation , 2006 .

[11]  James A. Westfall,et al.  NACP Aboveground Biomass and Carbon Baseline Data, V.2 (NBCD 2000), U.S.A., 2000 , 2013 .

[12]  Mark H. Hansen,et al.  Investigation into calculating tree biomass and carbon in the FIADB using a biomass expansion factor approach , 2009 .

[13]  F. Achard,et al.  Can recent pan-tropical biomass maps be used to derive alternative Tier 1 values for reporting REDD+ activities under UNFCCC? , 2014 .

[14]  Shobha Kondragunta,et al.  Estimating forest biomass in the USA using generalized allometric models and MODIS land products , 2006 .

[15]  R. Birdsey,et al.  National-Scale Biomass Estimators for United States Tree Species , 2003, Forest Science.

[16]  O. Mutanga,et al.  Multispectral and hyperspectral remote sensing for identification and mapping of wetland vegetation: a review , 2010, Wetlands Ecology and Management.

[17]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[18]  Josef Kellndorfer,et al.  Statistical fusion of lidar, InSAR, and optical remote sensing data for forest stand height characterization: A regional‐scale method based on LVIS, SRTM, Landsat ETM+, and ancillary data sets , 2010 .

[19]  Lijuan Liu,et al.  A survey of remote sensing-based aboveground biomass estimation methods in forest ecosystems , 2016, Int. J. Digit. Earth.

[20]  Chengquan Huang,et al.  Global, 30-m resolution continuous fields of tree cover: Landsat-based rescaling of MODIS vegetation continuous fields with lidar-based estimates of error , 2013, Int. J. Digit. Earth.

[21]  S. Goetz,et al.  Advances in remote sensing technology and implications for measuring and monitoring forest carbon stocks and change , 2011 .

[22]  Maurizio Santoro,et al.  Mapping forest aboveground biomass in the Northeastern United States with ALOS PALSAR dual-polarization L-band , 2012 .

[23]  Andrew O Finley,et al.  Integrating forest inventory and analysis data into a LIDAR-based carbon monitoring system , 2014, Carbon Balance and Management.

[24]  D. R. Cutler,et al.  Utah State University From the SelectedWorks of , 2017 .

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

[26]  Jarlath O'Neil-Dunne,et al.  AN OBJECT-BASED APPROACH TO STATEWIDE LAND COVER MAPPING , 2014 .