Spaceborne Canopy Height Products Should Be Complemented With Airborne Laser Scanning Data: Toward a European Canopy Height Model

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Measuring and mapping vegetation structure is essential for understanding the functioning of terrestrial ecosystems and for informing environmental policies. Recent years have seen a growing demand for high‐resolution data on vegetation structure, driving their prediction at fine resolutions (1–30 m) at state, continental, and global spatial extents by combining satellite data with machine learning. As these initiatives expand, it is crucial to actively discuss the quality and usability of these products. Here, we briefly summarize current efforts to map vegetation structure and show that continental‐to‐global canopy height models (CHMs) exhibit significant errors in canopy heights compared to national airborne laser scanning (ALS) data. We recommend that regions with abundant ALS data, such as Europe, prioritize using ALS‐based canopy height metrics rather than relying on less accurate predictions from satellite products. Despite variations in ALS data characteristics, such as temporal inconsistencies and differences in acquisition characteristics and classification accuracy, the generation of spatially contiguous canopy height products in raster format at fine spatial resolution is necessary and feasible. This requires coordinating efforts for data and survey harmonization, developing standardized processing pipelines and continent‐wide ALS products, and ensuring free access for research and environmental policy. We show that ALS data now cover most of Europe, with newer surveys achieving higher point densities, improving their suitability for vegetation mapping. Beyond numerous applications in forestry, ecology, and conservation, such data sets are crucial for calibrating future Earth Observation missions, making them essential for producing reliable and accurate global, fine‐resolution vegetation structure data.

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