Factors affecting relative height and ground elevation estimations of GEDI among forest types across the conterminous USA

Le résumé fourni par la source

The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI), a new spaceborne LiDAR system of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), has the potential to revolutionize global measurements of vertical vegetation structure. However, GEDI performance among different forest types and factors influencing GEDI performance needs to be evaluated against similar measurements from existing airborne LiDAR platforms. Ideally, comparisons across diverse forest types will inform future work quantifying biomass or mapping species habitats. Thus, we compared the second version of GEDI L2A product (GEDI V2) with Airborne Observation Platform (AOP) leaf-on LiDAR data across 33 National Ecological Observation Network (NEON) sites. Comparisons were made for ground elevation and relative height (RH) of GEDI with simulated airborne laser scanning (ALS) waveforms from discrete point cloud LiDAR. Results indicated that GEDI V2 obtained high accuracy on ground elevation and RH100 estimations (3σ) with RMSEs of 1.38 m and 2.62 m, respectively. GEDI produced forest height estimations (RH100) for all 12 forest types with a %RMSE below 25%. GEDI RHs were sensitive to ground finding accuracy, and GEDI performance of RH estimation varied from forest profiles of different forest types. For factors influencing GEDI performance, greater than 21% of GEDI RH95 and 33% of ground elevation variations can be explained by land surface attributes, observing sensor system characteristics, and the collection time differences between GEDI and NEON LiDAR. Furthermore, geolocation error remains an essential factor affecting GEDI performance, which varies among forest and land cover types, especially for canopy height estimation. The findings reported here can provide insights to guide and enhance future GEDI-based global forest structure mapping and applications.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.