A CNN-based approach for the estimation of canopy heights and wood volume from GEDI waveforms

Abstract Full waveform (FW) LiDAR systems have proven their effectiveness to map forest biophysical variables in the last two decades, owing to their ability of measuring, with high accuracy, forest vertical structures. The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) system on board the International Space Station (ISS) is the latest FW spaceborne LiDAR instrument for the continuous observation of Earth's forests. FW systems rely on very sophisticated pre-processing steps to generate a priori metrics in order to leverage their capabilities for the accurate estimation of the aforementioned forest characteristics. The ever-expanding volume of acquired GEDI data, which to date comprises more than 25 billion acquired unfiltered shots, and along with the pre-processed data, amounting to more than 90 TB of data, raises new challenges in terms of adapted preprocessing methods for the suitable exploitation of such a huge and complex amount of LiDAR data. To overcome the issues related to the generation of relevant metrics from GEDI data, we propose a new metric-free approach to estimate canopy dominant heights (Hdom) and wood volume (V) of Eucalyptus plantations over five different regions in Brazil. To avoid metric computation, we leverage deep learning techniques and, more in detail, convolutional neural networks with the aim to analyze the GEDI Level 1B geolocated waveforms. Performance comparisons were conducted between four convolutional neural network (CNN) variants using GEDI waveform data (either untouched, or subsetted) and a metric based Random Forest regressor (RF). Additionally, we tested if our framework can improve the generalization of the models to different distant regions. First, the models were trained using data from all the study regions. Cross validated results showed that the CNN based models compared well against their RF counterpart for both Hdom and V. The RMSE on the estimation of Hdom from the CNN based models varied between 1.54 and 1.94 m with a coefficient of determination (R2) between 0.86 and 0.91, while the RF model produced an accuracy on Hdom estimates of 1.45 m (R2 = 0.92). For V, CNN based estimations ranged from 27.76 to 33.33 m3.ha−1 (R2 between 0.82 and 0.88), while for RF, the RMSE was 27.61 m3.ha−1 (R2 = 0.88). Next, model generalization was assessed by means of a spatial transfer experiment. For Hdom, both the CNN and RF approaches showed similar performances to a global model, however, the CNN based approach showed higher variability on the estimation accuracy, and the variability was related to the forest structure between the trained and tested data (similar tree heights yield better accuracies). For the estimation of V, considering both approaches, the accuracy was dependent on the allometric relationship between Hdom and V in the training and testing regions while lower accuracies on V were obtained when the testing and training regions exhibited a different allometric relationship.

[1]  Radu Horaud,et al.  A Comprehensive Analysis of Deep Regression , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[2]  Ho Tong Minh Dinh,et al.  Aboveground biomass mapping in French Guiana by combining remote sensing, forest inventories and environmental data , 2016, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinformation.

[3]  Michael A. Lefsky,et al.  Revised method for forest canopy height estimation from Geoscience Laser Altimeter System waveforms , 2007 .

[4]  E. Næsset Predicting forest stand characteristics with airborne scanning laser using a practical two-stage procedure and field data , 2002 .

[5]  Jérôme C. Riedi,et al.  Quality Assessment of Acquired GEDI Waveforms: Case Study over France, Tunisia and French Guiana , 2021, Remote. Sens..

[6]  Di Wang,et al.  Automated Detection of Myocardial Infarction Using a Gramian Angular Field and Principal Component Analysis Network , 2019, IEEE Access.

[7]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Is waveform worth it? A comparison of LiDAR approaches for vegetation and landscape characterization , 2015 .

[8]  Hongzhang Xu,et al.  Deep learning in environmental remote sensing: Achievements and challenges , 2020, Remote Sensing of Environment.

[9]  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.

[10]  F. M. Danson,et al.  Waveform lidar over vegetation: An evaluation of inversion methods for estimating return energy , 2015 .

[11]  Heather McNairn,et al.  Synthetic aperture radar and optical satellite data for estimating the biomass of corn , 2019, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinformation.

[12]  Joachim Denzler,et al.  Deep learning and process understanding for data-driven Earth system science , 2019, Nature.

[13]  Nicolas Baghdadi,et al.  Canopy Height Estimation in French Guiana with LiDAR ICESat/GLAS Data Using Principal Component Analysis and Random Forest Regressions , 2014, Remote. Sens..

[14]  Jeffrey P. Walker,et al.  Analysis of full-waveform LiDAR data for classification of an orange orchard scene , 2013 .

[15]  K. Ranson,et al.  Forest vertical structure from GLAS : An evaluation using LVIS and SRTM data , 2008 .

[16]  D. Harding,et al.  ICESat waveform measurements of within‐footprint topographic relief and vegetation vertical structure , 2005 .

[17]  Shelley A. Hinsley,et al.  Comparison of small-footprint discrete return and full waveform airborne lidar data for estimating multiple forest variables , 2016 .

[18]  V. Gond,et al.  Mapping Lorey’s height over Hyrcanian forests of Iran using synergy of ICESat/GLAS and optical images , 2018 .

[19]  K. Tansey,et al.  Backscatter coefficient as an attribute for the classification of full-waveform airborne laser scanning data in urban areas , 2010 .

[20]  H. Zwally,et al.  Overview of the ICESat Mission , 2005 .

[21]  A. Baccini,et al.  Mapping forest canopy height globally with spaceborne lidar , 2011 .

[22]  J. Stape,et al.  Generalized stem taper and tree volume equations applied to eucalyptus of varying genetics in Brazil , 2019, Canadian Journal of Forest Research.

[23]  Mehrez Zribi,et al.  Assessment of GEDI's LiDAR Data for the Estimation of Canopy Heights and Wood Volume of Eucalyptus Plantations in Brazil , 2021, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing.

[24]  Nicolas Audebert,et al.  Deep Learning for Classification of Hyperspectral Data: A Comparative Review , 2019, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine.

[25]  Ricardo da S. Torres,et al.  A Multirepresentational Fusion of Time Series for Pixelwise Classification , 2020, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing.

[26]  W. Cohen,et al.  Lidar Remote Sensing for Ecosystem Studies , 2002 .

[27]  Dino Ienco,et al.  Combining Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 Satellite Image Time Series for land cover mapping via a multi-source deep learning architecture , 2019 .

[28]  J. Stape,et al.  Variation in whole-rotation yield among Eucalyptus genotypes in response to water and heat stresses: The TECHS project , 2020 .

[29]  Kaiming He,et al.  Designing Network Design Spaces , 2020, 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

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

[31]  Dino Ienco,et al.  Weakly Supervised Learning for Land Cover Mapping of Satellite Image Time Series via Attention-Based CNN , 2020, IEEE Access.

[32]  Nicolas Baghdadi,et al.  Testing Different Methods of Forest Height and Aboveground Biomass Estimations From ICESat/GLAS Data in Eucalyptus Plantations in Brazil , 2014, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing.

[33]  Juan Li,et al.  Human Activity Recognition Based on Gramian Angular Field and Deep Convolutional Neural Network , 2020, IEEE Access.

[34]  R. Nelson,et al.  Regional aboveground forest biomass using airborne and spaceborne LiDAR in Québec. , 2008 .

[35]  Germain Forestier,et al.  Deep learning for time series classification: a review , 2018, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.

[36]  Yang-Won Lee,et al.  A Comparison Between Major Artificial Intelligence Models for Crop Yield Prediction: Case Study of the Midwestern United States, 2006-2015 , 2019, ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf..

[37]  S. Durrieu,et al.  Advanced full-waveform lidar data echo detection: Assessing quality of derived terrain and tree height models in an alpine coniferous forest , 2009 .

[38]  Hilko van der Voet,et al.  Comparing the predictive accuracy of models using a simple randomization test , 1994 .

[39]  Xiao Xiang Zhu,et al.  Deep learning in remote sensing: a review , 2017, ArXiv.

[40]  Jimmy Ba,et al.  Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization , 2014, ICLR.

[41]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Deep Learning , 2015, Nature.

[42]  W. Cohen,et al.  Estimates of forest canopy height and aboveground biomass using ICESat , 2005 .

[43]  Sergey Ioffe,et al.  Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift , 2015, ICML.

[44]  Kilian Q. Weinberger,et al.  Densely Connected Convolutional Networks , 2016, 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[45]  Thomas Brox,et al.  Striving for Simplicity: The All Convolutional Net , 2014, ICLR.

[46]  Xiao Xiang Zhu,et al.  Deep Learning in Remote Sensing: A Comprehensive Review and List of Resources , 2017, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine.

[47]  K. Kraus,et al.  FROM SINGLE-PULSE TO FULL-WAVEFORM AIRBORNE LASER SCANNERS: POTENTIAL AND PRACTICAL CHALLENGES , 2004 .

[48]  Ho Tong Minh Dinh,et al.  Integration of spaceborne lidar data to improve the forest biomass map in madagascar , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS).