Quantifying the precision of forest stand height and canopy cover estimates derived from air photo interpretation. (6th May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tompalski, Piotr; White, Joanne C; Coops, Nicholas C; Wulder, Michael A; Leboeuf, Antoine; Sinclair, Ian; Butson, Christopher R; Lemonde, Marc-Olivier
• Is Part Of: Forestry. Volume 94:Number 5(2021)
• Page Start: 611
• Page End: 629
• Publication Date: 2021-05-06
• Subjects: Forests and forestry -- Periodicals; Forests and forestry -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; 634.9
• DOI: 10.1093/forestry/cpab022
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0015-752X

Abstract

Abstract: Quality information on forest resources is fundamental for sustainable forest management. Manual aerial photointerpretation is used as a cost-effective source of data for forest inventories; however, the process of photointerpretation is inherently subjective and is often undertaken by multiple photointerpreters for a given forest management area. In contrast, airborne laser scanning (ALS) data enable characterization of forest structure in a systematic fashion with quantifiable levels of accuracy and precision that often exceed required targets and standards. However, the gains associated with the use of new technologies for forest inventory are difficult to measure because the quality of existing photointepreted inventories have rarely been quantified. Using ALS data as reference, the objective of this study was to quantify the precision of photointerpreted estimates of forest stand height and canopy cover (CC). We examined forest inventories from three study sites in three different forest regions of Canada. Each of the study sites was located within a different provincial jurisdiction with unique photointerpretation standards and forest ecosystems. Stand-level estimates of forest height and cover were compared to reference estimates generated from the ALS data. Overall, our results indicated that precision was greater for photointerpreted estimates of height, with a relative standard deviation ranging from 22 per cent to 29 per cent among our three sites, compared to estimates for CC, with precision ranging from 28 per cent to 59 per cent. While the relationship between photointerpreted estimates of height and ALS estimates of height were generally linear and consistent for all study sites, relationships for CC were non-linear. We found that precision for both stand height and cover varied by dominant species, inventory stand structure, age, and ALS canopy complexity, and that in the majority of cases, the differences between the photointerpreted estimate and the ALS estimate were statistically significant. It is also noted that the variability in photointerpretation precision as a function of the aforementioned factors was not consistent among our three study sites, indicating that site-specific forest conditions and photointerpretation procedures influence the precision of photointerpreted estimates. The influence of local forest conditions and interpretation procedures are therefore important considerations when seeking to quantify the potential relative gains in precision, which may be afforded by technologies such as ALS for forest inventory programs. Moreover, approaches to improve consistency in photointerpreted estimates of cover would be useful for operational inventory programs.