Dr. Prabuddha Ganguli CEO “VISION-IPR” 101-201, Sun View Heights, Plot 262,
Estimating plot-level tree heights with lidar: local ......Estimating plot-level tree heights with...
Transcript of Estimating plot-level tree heights with lidar: local ......Estimating plot-level tree heights with...
Estimating plot-level tree heights with lidar: localfiltering with a canopy-height based variable
window size
Sorin C. Popescu a,�, Randolph H. Wynne a, Ross F. Nelson b
a Department of Forestry, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USAb Laboratory for Terrestrial Physics, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA
Abstract
In recent years, the use of airborne lidar technology to measure forest biophysical
characteristics has been rapidly increasing. This paper discusses processing algorithms for
deriving the terrain model and estimating tree heights by using a multiple return, high�/
density, small-footprint lidar data set. The lidar data were acquired over deciduous,
coniferous, and mixed stands of varying age classes and settings typical of the southeastern
US. The specific objectives were: (1) to develop and test algorithms to estimate plot level tree
height using lidar data, and (2) to investigate how ground measurements can help in the
processing phase of lidar data for tree height assessment. The study area is located in the
Piedmont physiographic province of Virginia, USA and includes a portion of the
Appomattox-Buckingham State Forest (37825?N, 78841?W). Two lidar processing algorithms
are discussed*/the first based on single tree crown identification using a variable window size
for local filtering, and the second based on the height of all laser pulses within the area covered
by the ground truth data. Height estimates resulted from processing lidar data with both
algorithms were compared to field measurements obtained with a plot design following the
USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) field data layout. Linear
regression was used to develop equations relating lidar-estimated parameters with field
inventories for each of the FIA plots. As expected, the maximum height on each plot was
predicted with the highest accuracy (R2 values of 85 and 90%, for the first and the second
algorithm, respectively). The variable window size algorithm performed better for predicting
heights of dominant and co-dominant trees (R2 values 84�/85%), with a diameter at breast
height (dbh) larger than 12.7 cm (5 in), when compared with the algorithm based on all laser
� Corresponding author. Address: Department of Forestry, 319 Cheatham Hall, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
E-mail address: [email protected] (S.C. Popescu).
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/95
www.elsevier.com/locate/compag
0168-1699/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 8 - 1 6 9 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 2 1 - 7
heights (R2 values 57�/73%). The use of field-based height thresholds when processing lidar
data did not bring significant gains in explaining the total variation associated with tree height.
The technique of local filtering with a variable window size considers fundamental forest
biometrics relationships and overall proved to give better results than the technique of all laser
shots.
# 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Lidar; Forest inventory and analysis; Tree height; Interpolation; Digital elevation model;
Variable window size
1. Introduction
Airborne laser sensors allow scientists to analyze forests in a 3-D format over large
areas. In contrast to monoscopic optical remote sensing methods, which yield
information on horizontal forest pattern, modern lidar systems provide georefer-
enced information of the vertical structure of forest canopies. Laser pulses from a
sensor carried aboard an aircraft are directed toward the ground to collect ranging
data to the top of the canopy, and in some instances, to subcanopy layers of
vegetation and to the ground. Airborne lidars have been used to describe
topographic relief (e.g., Krabill et al., 1984; Schreier et al., 1985; Bufton et al.,
1991; Ritchie, 1995), and forest vegetation characteristics, such as percent canopy
cover, biomass (e.g., Nelson et al., 1984, 1988a,b), and gross-merchantable timber
volume (Maclean and Krabill, 1986). Previous studies that focused on estimating
forest stand characteristics with scanning lasers used lidar data with either relatively
large laser footprints, 5�/25 m, (Harding et al., 1994; Lefsky et al., 1997, 1999;
Weishampel et al., 1997; Blair et al., 1999; Means et al., 1999) or small-footprints,
but with only one laser return (Næsset, 1997a,b; Magnussen and Boudewyn, 1998;
Magnussen et al. 1999). A small-footprint lidar with the potential to record the entire
time-varying distribution of returned pulse energy or waveform was used by Nilsson
(1996) for measuring tree heights and stand volume.
In recent years, the use of airborne lidar technology to measure forest biophysical
characteristics has been rapidly increasing. In addition to providing a characteriza-
tion of ground topography, lidar data give new information about the canopy
surface and vegetation parameters, such as height, stem density, and crown
dimensions, which is critical for environmental modeling activities. Airborne lidar
data combine both surface elevations and accurate planimetric coordinates, and
processing algorithms can identify single trees or groups of trees in order to extract
various measurements on their 3-D representation.
Laser scanner systems currently available are in a fairly mature state of art, while
the processing of airborne scanning lidar data still is in an early phase of
development (Axelsson, 1999). Airborne laser scanning represents an emerging
technology that is making the transition from the proof-of-concept to reliable uses
(Flood and Gutelius 1997). It is a general feature of new technologies that technical
potential opens the ground for new applications. Airborne laser scanning is presently
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/9572
in that process, spreading into other fields beyond the generation of terrain models
(Ackermann, 1999).
Existing processing algorithms for lidar data are implemented through proprietary
software and generally try to filter vegetation to obtain the terrain elevation model.
The basic processing task that needs to be accomplished before attempting to
estimate forest parameters is the characterization of the terrain elevation and
creation of a digital elevation model (DEM), as a subset of the digital surface model(DSM) obtained from raw laser points. It is the unique ability of laser scanning to
measure ground elevation directly, most often through penetrating the tree canopy;
that is one of the major advantages that lidar offers over traditional photogram-
metry when operated in forested areas. However, few papers published on the
subject of separating lidar data into vegetation and terrain points provide all the
algorithmic details. In most of the forestry studies of lidar, the terrain elevation is
computed by the lidar data providers (e.g., Næsset, 1997a,b; Means et al., 2000).
Most of the algorithms for removing the vegetation laser hits are based on iterativealgorithms that combine filtering and thresholding methods (Kraus and Pfeifer,
1998; Axelsson, 1999; Jaafar et al., 1999; Petzold et al., 1999). The irregularly
dispersed laser points assumed to correspond to the ground are used with
appropriate interpolation methods to derive the high�/accuracy DEM. Lam (1983)
offers a comprehensive review of spatial interpolation methods. For point
interpolation, the numerous methods can be classified into exact and approximate.
Exact methods include distance-weighting, Kriging, spline interpolation, triangula-
tion, and finite-difference methods. Approximate methods include power-seriestrend models, Fourier models, distance-weighted least squares, and least-squares
fitting with splines. Despite intense efforts in the creation of high�/resolution DEMs
from lidar data, driven by either commercial or scientific purposes, the characteriza-
tion of terrain topography under forest conditions is still a challenge.
Some lidar sensors (e.g., Optech ALTM 1020, Optech Inc.) can be toggled to
record either the first or the last return, thus two flights are necessary over the same
area to get the bare ground terrain model and the top of the canopy surface. Image
subtraction with first- and last-return interpolated data can be used to derive treeheights (Young et al., 2000), though not all of the last-return hits penetrate to the
ground. Surveys in the U.S. Pacific Northwest carried out using the Optech ALTM
1020 scanning system indicated a minimum 20�/30% penetration of coniferous
canopies (Flood and Gutelius, 1997). In the same region, with conifer-dominated
stands and dense overstory, Means (2000) experienced a very low penetration to the
ground, only 1�/5%, for a small-footprint lidar. Kraus and Pfeifer (1998) estimated a
penetration rate of less than 25% for their lidar study in the Vienna Woods
(Wienerwald) in Austria, using an Optech ALTM 1020 lidar system.Measurement of stand height by current photogrammetric or field survey
techniques is time consuming and expensive. Tree heights have been derived from
scanning lidar data sets and have been compared with ground-based canopy height
measurements (Næsset, 1997a,b; Magnussen and Boudewyn, 1998; Magnussen et al.,
1999; Young et al., 2000). Recent studies show that, in moderate to dense forests,
small-footprint lidars tend to underestimate stand height (Nilsson, 1996; Næsset,
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/95 73
1997a). More frequent laser sampling of the crown shoulders than the tree apex
biases canopy heights toward low values.
Potential future uses of the lidar technology that have been foreseen in the
literature (e.g., Means, 2000) include the assessment of forest biomass, measurement
of forest structural attributes critical to understanding forest ecosystem condition,
and automated processing and integration with co-registered multi- and hyperspec-
tral digital imagery. Data from large-footprint lidar may become publicly availablewith the launch of the vegetation canopy lidar in the year 2004, as a result of the
collaboration between NASA and the University of Maryland (Dubayah et al.,
1997). Small-footprint lidars are available commercially and more research on their
potential for forestry applications is needed. Applications of small-footprint lidar
have not progressed too far, mainly because of the current cost of lidar data.
However, with an anticipated decline of lidar data cost in the near future combined
with promising current research efforts, the use of lidar in forestry is expected to
extend over many aspects of forest measurements. Situated in this context, theoverall objective of this study is to develop robust processing and analysis techniques
to facilitate the use of airborne laser data for forest tree height assessment. The
specific objectives are: (1) to develop and test algorithms to estimate plot level tree
height using lidar data, and (2) to investigate how ground measurements can help in
the processing phase of lidar data for tree height assessment.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study site
The study area is located in the southeastern US, in the Piedmont physiographic
province of Virginia (Fig. 1). It includes a portion of the Appomattox-Buckingham
State Forest that is characterized by deciduous, coniferous, and mixed stands of
varying age classes (37825?N, 78841?W). Fig. 2 provides a map of forest stand types
covered by the lidar data. A mean elevation of 185 m, with a minimum of 133 m anda maximum of 225 m, and gentle slopes characterize the topography of the study
area.
2.2. Ground reference data
The ground-truth data collection took place in the leaf-off season in December
1999, while the lidar was flown at the beginning of September, with leaf-on canopy
conditions. Three forest vegetation types were covered by the field sampling*/pine-hardwoods, upland hardwoods and pine plantations. The leaf-off canopy condition
for hardwoods allowed a more accurate measurement of tree heights from the
ground. The stand age varied, being approximately 15 years for the pine plantations,
35�/55 years for the pine-hardwood mixed stands, and up to 100�/115 years for the
upland-hardwood stands. The tree species found in the pine-hardwoods stands were
white oak (Quercus alba L.), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus L.), northern red oak
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/9574
(Quercus rubra L.), southern red oak (Quercus falcata Michx.), yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera L.), red maple (Acer rubrum L.), and three species of
pines*/Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana Mill.), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.), and
shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.). In addition to the hardwood species mentioned
above, the following species were inventoried in the upland-hardwood stands: pignut
hickory (Carya glabra (Mill.) Sweet), scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea Muenchn.),
black oak (Quercus velutina Lam.), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica Marsh.), and
American beech (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.). Of the two subplots located in pine
plantations, one was in a pure loblolly pine plantation, and one in a mixed pine
species plantation.The plot design followed the USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis
(FIA) field data layout. An FIA plot consists of a cluster of four subplots
approximately 0.017 ha (0.04 acres) each, with a radius of 7.32 m (24.0 ft) (National
Forest Inventory and Monitoring CORE Field Guide, 1998). One plot is distributed
over an area of approximately 0.4 ha (1 acre), thus it represents a sample of the
conditions within this area. The center plot is subplot 1. Subplots 2, 3, and 4 are
Fig. 1. Map of eastern US indicating the location of the study area.
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/95 75
located 36.58 m (120.0 ft) at azimuths 0, 120, and 2408 from the center of subplot 1
(Fig. 3). Subplots are used to collect data on trees with a diameter at dbh of 12.7 cm
(5.0 in), or greater. To allow a more detailed inventory of trees within the subplots,
Fig. 2. Forest stand types covered by lidar data.
Fig. 3. Layout of a single FIA plot with four subplots.
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/9576
we collected tree height and tree position data on trees with a dbh of at least 6.35 cm
(2.5 in). Except for the microplot, FIA standards only require measurement of trees
with a dbh larger than 12.7 cm. A microplot with a radius of 2.07 m (6.8 ft) was
located at the center of each subplot, to account for seedlings and saplings with a
dbh above 2.54 cm (1 in), but less than 6.35 cm (2.5 in). A total of 6 plots were
measured in the study area, each with 4 subplots. Plot centers (subplot 1 centers)
were located on a 200�/200 m2 grid (656�/656 ft2), with two rows oriented East�/
West, and three columns oriented North�/South (Fig. 2). The centers of subplots 1,
for all plots, were laid out in the field using a navigational GPS unit. In addition, all
FIA subplot locations were determined using 60 s static measurements with a 12-
channel GPS receiver, HP-GPS-L4 with a PC5-L data collector (Corvallis Micro-
technology, Inc.). The reported mapping accuracy for the HP-GPS-L4 unit, obtained
under open sky for 60 s of static measurements is 30 cm (Corvallis Microtechnology
and Inc., 2001). Under forest canopy, GPS systems tend to yield from 1.5�/3 times
less accurate solutions (Craig Greenwald, 2001, Corvallis Microtechnology, Inc.,Technical Support, personal communication). Therefore, we estimate sub-meter
accuracy for locating the plot centers. For this study, the subplots were pooled
together with no reference to the full plot to which they belong, and the results were
compared on a subplot basis. From the total of 24 subplots, 11 were located in
upland hardwood stands, 11 in pine-hardwood stands, and 2 in pine plantations.
On each subplot, the heights of all trees were measured. Trees higher than 7.62 m
(25 ft) were measured using a Vertex hypsometer, while smaller trees were measured
using a height pole. Several heights less than 7.62 m were measured with bothmethods and the height difference never exceeded 15 cm (0.5 ft). Diameter at dbh
was measured on all trees within the subplots using a diameter tape. Crown width
was measured on all trees with a dbh larger than 12.7 cm (5.0 in). Crown width was
determined as the average of four perpendicular crown radii measured with a tape
from the tree bole towards the subplot center, away from it, to the right and to the
left. The location (x ,y ) of each tree relative to the subplot center was determined by
bearing and distance using a distance tape and a compass, with an expected standard
error of up to 30 cm (1 ft), depending on the distance to the subplot center. Takinginto account the positional accuracy of the differential GPS unit for determining the
location of the subplot centers, the maximum error of a tree’s position is expected to
be approximately 1.5 m. This error only refers to the position of the base of the tree,
without considering the deviation of the tree top relative to the base.
2.3. Lidar data set
The lidar data were acquired over an area of 1012 ha, on September 2, 1999. The
canopy condition at that time was leaf-on. The lidar system (AeroScan, EarthData,Inc.) utilizes advanced technology in airborne positioning and orientation, enabling
the collection of high�/accuracy digital surface data. The aerial platform is a Piper
Navajo Chieftain aircraft capable of carrying aerial cameras, airborne GPS, inertial
measuring units, and the lidar sensor. The carrier airspeed was between 110�/145
knots. The scanning system uses an oscillating mirror with a scanning rate of 10 Hz
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/95 77
and a scanning angle that can be adjusted from 1 to 758. For the Appomattox-
Buckingham data set the scanning angle was 108, giving a total field of view of 208.The laser wavelength was 1064 mm and the pulse rate 15 kHz. The area was flown at
an average altitude of 1980 m above ground level. With a laser beam divergence of
0.33 mrad, the average footprint on the ground was 0.65 m. The laser instrument
field of view and the average flying height resulted in an average ground swath width
of 699 m. The entire research area was covered by 21 parallel flight lines, oriented
North�/South. The mission was designed with up to 70% overlap between adjacent
swaths to increase the point density on the ground and to correct for the scanning
pattern evident in Fig. 4(a) and (b). The sensor had a pulse time width of 12 ns.
The AeroScan system is not capable of recording the intensity of the backscattered
laser echo, but it is able of recording up to five returns for each laser pulse,
depending on the ground cover. We used only the first and last returns. The last
return could coincide with the first return where there was only one return per laser
pulse, or it could be the second, the third or the fourth, depending on how many
returns there were per pulse and which one of the subsequent returns was the last
one. The laser point density on the ground, for one swath, was of 0.47 points/m2 for
the first return, 0.20 points/m2 for the second return, 0.02 points/m2 for the third
return, and 0.0001 points/m2 for the fourth return. None of the pulses were able to
produce a fifth return for the given ground conditions. The point density for the first
or last return translates into an average point distance of 1.5 m. The resulting 3-D
coordinates of laser hits were compiled in an ASCII mass point file of x , y , z on the
UTM projection for each of the laser returns. By pooling all the laser points from
adjacent swaths into the same point file, the average interpoint distance decreased to
0.7 m. The provider performed an evaluation of the lidar data, including a
comparison of the data from flight line to flight line. This comparison showed
Fig. 4. Lidar scanning pattern on the ground; (a) at the center of the swath, (b) at the edge of the swath.
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/9578
high�/accuracy of overlapping lidar lines and no anomalies in the data. All ranges
were post-processed by EarthData and corrected for atmospheric refraction and
transmission delays.
The reported accuracies for the AeroScan lidar system flying at less than 2400 m
above ground, over open homogeneous flat terrain, are as follows: an elevation or
vertical accuracy of 9/15 cm and an horizontal accuracy of 9/25 cm (EarthData Inc.,
2001).
2.4. Ground digital elevation model
As previously stated, one must characterize the ground elevation before estimating
the vegetation height. A high laser point density allows an adequate filtering ofvegetation hits for the derivation of terrain elevation, since only a relatively low
number of laser pulses are able to entirely penetrate the canopy. The separation of
laser points into terrain and vegetation hits still remains a difficult task even for lidar
data provided by systems that are able to record multiple returns. A 2-D black-and-
white representation of lidar data (Fig. 5) depicts higher points with lighter pixels
and lower points with darker pixels. The images in Fig. 5 were created by
interpolating the cloud of first-return (a) and last-return (b) lidar points to a regular
grid using linear kriging. The interpolated grid cell size was 0.5 m. Both images showthe same area with a deciduous stand in the upper-left part of the scene and a young
pine plantation in the lower right corner. Though it is evident that Fig. 5(b) shows
points of lower heights, with darker pixels, parts of the deciduous tree crowns are
still apparent. Assumed ground returns are also noticeable in the young coniferous
stand, as they appear as small areas of darker pixels. It is clear that the last return
does not necessarily penetrate dense canopy layers to record the ground elevation
Fig. 5. (a) First- and (b) last-return, lidar image of a deciduous-coniferous wooded area.
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/95 79
and most of the returns are still vegetation points. In areas with low penetration
rates, filtering vegetation points proved to be a difficult task.
The step-by-step approach used to construct the terrain model from the raw lidar
data points, using only the last return elevation values, is shown in Fig. 6. The first
step of our algorithm for constructing the terrain elevation model overlays a grid
with a cell size of 5 m (Fig. 7) over the laser points and identifies the minimum laser
point elevation in each cell. The terrain slopes are gentle and a smaller grid cell size is
not justified, while a larger size would not adequately characterize the micro-relief.
Up to this point, the raw laser heights, without interpolation, are used. By
interpolating, some information in the original laser points is lost, thus it is
recommended to use original laser point values for as long as possible in the
processing phase (Axelsson, 1999). Some of the large hardwood crowns, like the one
depicted in the rectangle outlined in Fig. 5(a) and (b), cover an area larger than one 5
m grid cell, thus, the minimum elevation laser hit in such situations would not
correspond to a ground hit. Fig. 8 shows the result of the second step of the
algorithm. The image in Fig. 8 was interpolated using linear kriging from the lidar
points selected at the first step. The high laser points hitting vegetation above the
ground, though the lowest points in some grid cells, are clearly pictured in Fig. 8 as
small tops, with light colored pixels. Also evident in Fig. 8, the darker ‘sinks’
correspond most probably to true ground hits. The third step of the algorithm
identifies the laser points (corresponding to the dark pixels in Fig. 8) by running a
local minimum filter with a window size of 3�/3 pixels (i.e., 1.5 m) through the
interpolated lidar grid. The final DEM (Fig. 9) is interpolated using linear kriging
from the irregularly dispersed points identified in step 3. The average point distance
for the presumed ground points left in step 2 is 9.8 m. The grid cell size for the
interpolated DEM is 0.5 m.
The linear kriging technique was chosen for interpolating from dispersed lidar
points to a regular grid. Two other techniques were tried for the final DEM:
distance-weighting and triangulation with linear interpolation. The inverse distance
or distance-weighting gridding method is a weighted average interpolator. The
weight given to a particular data point when calculating a grid node is proportional
to the inverse of the distance of the observation from the grid node. Kriging is a
geostatistical gridding method that uses a variogram to analyze the spatial variation
Fig. 6. Flow chart of terrain finding algorithm.
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/9580
present within an area. Triangulation with linear interpolation is an exact
interpolator that works by creating triangles by drawing lines between data points.
Residuals were calculated as the difference between original laser heights for the first
lidar return and interpolated elevation values at the same points in the gridded
Fig. 7. Grid overlay on the laser points.
Fig. 8. Interpolated image from the lowest lidar elevations in 5 m grid cells.
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/95 81
surface, for each of the interpolation methods. Residuals were analyzed and theirdistribution represented graphically using box-and-whiskers plots.
The derivation of the DEM was only an intermediate step towards estimating the
tree heights. No ground truth data with points of known elevation were collected to
estimate the accuracy of the DEM itself. The accuracy of the DEM is reflected
indirectly in the accuracy of estimating tree heights. The laser penetration rate was
estimated by analyzing the residuals of the original last return laser points and the
interpolated DEM. The penetration rate was considered the percent of original laser
points that have residuals less than 15 cm (9/15 cm being the reported lidar verticalaccuracy for the AeroScan system, EarthData, Inc.).
2.5. Tree heights
As mentioned before, the frequency of ground returns can be low and the
characterization of terrain elevation might degrade the accuracy of the derived
canopy heights. The tree canopy height model (CHM) was computed as the
difference between tree canopy hits and the corresponding DEM values. The same
method was also used by Næsset (1997a), though details on the algorithm used to
compute the DEM are not provided. The tree canopy surface is the DSM obtained
by interpolating the first lidar returns to a regular grid. A portion of the CHMcovering 36.5 ha is presented in Fig. 10, along with the ortho-image of the entire area
covered by lidar data. The ortho-image is derived from 1:13 000 color-infrared
photography acquired by NASA in the fall of 1999. Fig. 11 shows a vertical profile
through the CHM and a ground photo taken from the same location as the profile.
The ground photo was taken in the leaf-off season, but a hardwood stand is visible
Fig. 9. 3-D view of the terrain DEM (vertical exaggeration of 3).
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/9582
Fig. 10. (a) Ortho-image and (b) CHM.
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/95 83
to the left of a fire line and a pine plantation to the right. The fire line is also clearly
visible as a linear feature oriented west-east on the ortho- and CHM-images in Fig.
10(a) and (b).
Two approaches were used to estimate the tree height on the same circular areas
covered by the field FIA subplots. The first approach is based on the height of all
laser pulses within the area covered by a subplot. The FIA subplot circumferences
were used to extract all pixel values from the CHM. Pixel values represent
Fig. 11. Ground photo showing the location of the vertical profile through the CHM. The arrow to the
left of the CHM image indicates the direction of sight for the photo. The vertical profile corresponds to a
portion of the left edge of the CHM image. The vertical bar on the profile corresponds to the location of
the arrow. (Illustrations in colour online in Science Direct).
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/9584
interpolated laser heights for the canopy surface. A priori information from the field
data collection regarding the minimum tree height was used to threshold the laser
height values in order to eliminate the effect of shrubs and understory vegetation.
The minimum tree height measured on the ground in the 24 subplots, including the
microplots measurements, was 2.44 m, thus all observations with height values less
than that were excluded from computations. In an operational setting, a quick
ground inspection and possibly a reduced forest inventory could give indications onforest condition for use in lidar processing.
Statistics were extracted for each subplot, and they include mean height of all
height values within the circular plot, standard deviation, and percentiles of the
heights distribution for 1, 5, 10, 25 (first quartile), 50 (median), 75 (third quartile),
90, 99%, maximum and mode. The standard deviation of laser heights within a
subplot was computed, since it is an additional characteristic of the vertical stand
structure. Three sets of statistics were extracted from both the field data and lidar
data and used with linear regression (Table 1). The first threshold, 2.44 m, was usedto eliminate the effect of bushes, stumps, and low-lying vegetation. Næsset (1997b)
used a threshold of 2 m to eliminate the effect of stones, shrubs, etc. Similarly, trees
with a dbh larger than 6.35 cm were higher than 3.96 m on the ground. The rationale
behind using this threshold is that in operational use, a forest inventory with a
reduced sample size could provide information regarding the minimum height of
trees in this category. It is very improbable that the lidar processing would be done
without a preliminary investigation of the ground and vegetation condition. Except
for the microplots, the FIA field measurements include only trees with a dbh largerthan 12.7 cm. As such, lidar height values below a certain threshold, in this case 7.62
m, should be ignored, since they are probably returns from smaller trees. Linear
regression with stepwise selection was used to investigate the estimation of tree
heights. The dependent variables were the mean height values for all the trees in each
subplot, all trees with dbh larger than 6.35 cm, all trees with dbh larger than 12.7 cm,
and the maximum tree height for each subplot.
The second method to estimate tree heights is based on single tree identification. A
common technique used to identify tree locations on high�/resolution optical imagesuses a local maximum (LM) filter with a static-sized, user specified, moving window,
commonly 3�/3, 5�/5, and 7�/7 pixels, depending also on the pixel size (Niemann
et al., 1999; Pinz, 1999). The LM technique used with optical images is based on the
fact that the reflectance of a tree crown is typically greatest at its apex. The LM
technique used with lidar data operates on the assumption that the highest laser
elevation value among laser hits of the same tree crown is the apex. Successful
identification of the tree location using the LM technique depends on the careful
selection of the filter window size. If the filter size is too small or too large, errors ofcommission or, respectively, omission occur. The static nature of this technique is
inconsistent with the complex canopy structure of hardwood and mixed pine-
hardwood stands. Thus, the second method for estimating tree height uses a variable
window size LM technique that operates under the assumption that there are
multiple tree crown shapes and sizes and that the moving LM filter should be
adjusted to an appropriate size that corresponds to the spatial structure found on the
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/95 85
Table 1
Variables used in linear regression
Set of vari-
ables
Dependent variables (measured
on the ground)
Independent variables
Method based on all laser heights/
subplot: percentiles, maximum, and
mode for
Variable window size method: mean height, minimum and maximum
height, standard deviation of height, median, 1st and 3rd quartiles,
and number of trees for
1 Mean height of all trees and
maximum height
Heights distribution of pixel values
higher than 2.44 m
Lidar identified trees higher than 2.44 m
2 Mean height of all trees with a
dbhE/6.35 cm and maximum
height
Heights distribution of pixel values
higher than 3.96 m
Lidar identified trees higher than 3.96 m
3 Mean height of all trees with a
dbhE/12.7 cm and maximum
height
Heights distribution of pixel values
higher than 7.62 m
Lidar identified trees higher than 7.62 m
S.C
.P
op
escuet
al.
/C
om
pu
tersa
nd
Electro
nics
inA
gricu
lture
37
(2
00
2)
71�
/95
86
lidar image and on the ground. Daley et al. (1998) used texture analysis of high�/
resolution optical images (MEIS-II) with a variable window size to estimate crown
position in stands of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco). The LM
filter works best for trees with a single, well defined, apex, such as the conifer species.
The derivation of the appropriate window size to search for tree tops is based on a
relationship between the height of the trees and their crown size. Basically, the higher
the trees, the larger the crown size. Thus, tree height and crown size data from the
field inventory, a total of 189 trees, were used to derive a relationship between tree
height and crown size. Crown size was considered the dependent variable and linear
and nonlinear regression models were tested. The best prediction for crown size
based on tree height, with an R -square value of 0.51, was obtained when using linear
regression with a quadratic model as shown below in Eq. (1):
Crown width (m)�2:21�0:01022H2 (1)
where H is the tree height (m ).
For loblolly pine plantations in the same area, with ages from 1 to 10 years,
Sharma (Mahadev Sharma, 2001, unpublished data) obtained higher R -square
values for predicting crown width from height (0.7 with height alone and 0.76
using height and height-squared, with both variables significant). However, at early
ages in plantations, when tree competition is not very strong, it is expected to find a
better correlation between crown width and height. In our study, using only
height as the predictor variable, the relationship is not as strong as between dbh and
height, but it offers a base to continuously vary the LM filter size when moved across
the grid of laser height values. By using the equation above, the window size varied
between 3�/3 and 25�/25 pixels, which would correspond to crown widths between
1.5 and 12.5 m. The algorithm reads the height value at each pixel and calculates the
window size to search for the LM. If the current pixel corresponds to the LM, it is
flagged as
a tree top (Fig. 12). Each pixel has a window size associated with it, but Fig. 13
shows only the windows that identified tree tops. Once the location of each
identified tree crown has been established, the canopy 3-D surface of laser heights
(CHM) is sampled only at the positions of the tree apex to find out the height of
each tree. The total number of local maxima within one plot is an indicator of
the number of stems. Three sets of height estimates were extracted from the CHM
for each subplot, with the same thresholds used for the first method of estimating
heights*/2.44, 3.96, and 7.62 m (Table 1). Each set of lidar estimates included
mean height, minimum and maximum heights, standard deviation of tree heights,
median, first and third quartiles, and number of trees. Each set of height
estimates was compared to the corresponding set of field measurements using linear
regression with stepwise selection (0.15 significance level). Height estimates from
both the first and the second methods were compared to the same field data
values.
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/95 87
3. Results
Residuals from the three interpolation techniques, inverse distance, kriging, and
triangulation, are represented graphically using box-and-whiskers plots in Fig. 14.
The kriging method shows a smaller range, interquartile range, and standard error of
the mean and was chosen for interpolation.
Fig. 15 shows the frequency of residuals for the first and last returns from the
calculated DEM. These residuals are basically canopy heights for the first and last
Fig. 12. Ortho-image (a) and tree tops identified in the pine-hardwood mixed stand (b) and the pine
plantation next to it (c). Rectangle on the ortho-image shows approximate location of zoom window (b).
Window (c) is located to the right of (b). Plantation row pattern oriented SW-NE is visible in (a) and (c).
(Illustrations in colour online in Science Direct).
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/9588
returns. They give an indication of the vertical distribution of canopy heights for the
entire area. The penetration rate for the last return laser hits, when consideringresiduals less than 15 cm, was estimated to be 3.9%.
Linear regression was used to develop equations relating lidar-estimated
parameters with field inventories for each of the FIA subplots. The results for
both methods are shown in Table 2. The presence of multicollinearity effects was
investigated using eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the correlation matrix. The
condition number of the correlation matrix (Myers, 1990, p. 369�/370), that is, the
ratio of the largest to the smallest eigenvalue, and ratios of eigenvalues were implied
for diagnosing the impact of a dependency. No multicollinearity effects were found.
4. Discussion and conclusions
The results of the current study show that the technique of estimating mean tree
height by identifying the location of individual trees performed better than the first
Fig. 13. A portion of the lidar derived CHM and the variable windows that identified tree tops. The dark
portions of the CHM corresponds to pine plantations, with smaller and denser trees, while the lighter area
covers hardwoods crowns, with larger windows.
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/95 89
technique that makes use of all laser height values within the subplots. However,
only a small percent of the variation in mean tree height was explained by lidar
variables (35% for the variable window size method and only 21% for the all laser
heights method). These results could be attributed to the influence of intermediate
and overtopped trees measured on the ground to the calculation of mean height.
Such trees have crowns partially or entirely below the general level of the canopy and
intercept very few of the laser hits and have very little influence on the lidar variables.
The results show a rather intuitive behavior by obtaining better R2 values (all above
80%) for estimating the height of dominant trees, in this case of trees with a dbh
larger than 12.7 cm. The upper layer of dominant trees intercept most of the laser
shots, and thus, estimates better correlate with their mean height. Dominant and co-
dominant trees, with large dbh and tall height, account for a major portion of the
timber volume and above-ground biomass.One crucial aspect that could strongly affect the results is the accurate co-location
of lidar data and field subplots. Also, the top of the trees could be horizontally
displaced from the base of the stem due to leaning caused by competition and/or
defective stem structure. Assuming an accurate location of the subplot center on the
lidar image, outwards-leaning marginal trees would be tallied in the field but their
top would not be included in the subplot area on the lidar image. Part of the
unexplained variance could also be attributed to the terrain DEM. As expected, the
Fig. 14. Boxplots of residuals (m) for three interpolation techniques.
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/9590
best prediction was obtained for the maximum height. The variable window size
method gave consistent results for all situations (R2 of 85%). Maximum height was
best predicted with the second method, by taking into account all laser height values
per plot. When using the height threshold of 3.96 m, the maximum height was
predicted with an R2 value of 90%. For the first method of estimating tree height, the
variables that appeared significant in most of the regression models were mean
height and maximum height estimated from the lidar data. For the method that
considered all laser heights per plot, upper quartile values of the tree heights
distribution proved to be significant. The 90th percentile was most significant for
estimating mean height for all trees and for trees with a dbh larger than 6.35 cm.
Similarly, for trees with a dbh larger than 12.7 m, the most significant for estimating
mean height was the 95th percentile. Predictably, when estimating maximum height,
the uppermost 99th percentile was among the significant variables in the regression
models.
With the exception of estimating maximum height for trees higher than 3.96 m (R2
of 90% when using the method of all laser heights per plot), processing lidar data
Fig. 15. Residuals of first return (a) and last return (b) laser points from the calculated DEM.
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/95 91
Table 2
Regression results
Method Predicted variable Regression model with significant var-
iablesa (P B/0.05)
R2
(%)
(a) Independent variable*/estimates for all
laser heights in each subplot
1 (all laser heights) Mean height 7.13�/0.26 Q90 20
Maximum height 0.77�/1.00 Q75�/1.82 Q99 79
Mean height for
dbh�/6.35 cm
6.48�/0.33 Q90 35
Mean height for
dbh�/12.7 cm
2.93�/4.37 STDEV�/1.13 Q5�/1.84 Q99 73
2 (individual trees) Mean height 5.45�/0.32 LMAX 35
Maximum height �/0.13�/0.25 LMEAN�/1.21 LMAX 85
Mean height for
dbh�/6.35 cm
4.67�/0.40 LMAX 55
Mean height for
dbh�/12.7 cm
2.86�/0.57 LMEAN�/0.22 LMIN�/�/
0.31 LMAX
85
(b) Independent variable*/estimates for laser
heights�/3.96 m in each subplot
1 (all laser heights) Mean height 7.14�/0.26 Q90 21
Maximum height 1.63�/2.35 LMEAN�/1.49 Q25�/1.37
Q75�/1.14 Q90�/1.81 Q99
90
Mean height for
dbh�/6.35 cm
6.43�/0.34 Q90 36
Mean height for
dbh�/12.7 cm
4.78�/2.17 LMEAN �/1.12 Q25 �/1.27
Q99
73
2 (individual trees) Mean height 5.45�/0.32 LMAX 35
Maximum height �/0.13�/0.25 LMEAN�/1.21 LMAX 85
Mean height for
dbh�/6.35 cm
4.67�/0.40 LMAX 55
Mean height for
dbh�/12.7 cm
2.86�/0.57 LMEAN�/0.22 LMIN�/
0.31 LMAX
85
(c) Independent variable*/estimates for laser
heights�/7.62 m in each subplot
1 (all laser heights) Mean height 7.63�/0.24 Q95 19
Maximum height 4.77�/0.40 Q25�/1.1 Q99 55
Mean height for
dbh�/6.35 cm
7.11�/0.30 Q95 33
Mean height for
dbh�/12.7 cm
6.08�/4.78 Q50�/0.91 Q99 57
2 (individual trees) Mean height 5.45�/0.32 LMAX 35
Maximum height 0.06�/0.28 LMEAN�/1.22 LMAX 85
Mean height for
dbh�/6.35 cm
4.67�/0.40 LMAX 55
Mean height for
dbh�/12.7 cm
1.65�/0.45 LMEAN�/0.35 LMAX 84
a Variables notation is as follows: LMAX, lidar estimated maximum height/subplot; LNR, lidar
estimated number of trees/subplot; LMIN, lidar estimated minimum height/subplot; LMEAN, lidar
estimated mean subplot height; Q5�/Q99, quartiles of heights distribution.
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/9592
with a priori field information did not prove to be useful. The gain in explaining the
total variation of maximum tree height was 11% in that case. Low R2 values (below
57%) were obtained for all predicted variables with the method of all laser height
values per plot, when using laser heights above 7.62 m. Thus, we conclude that the
use of height thresholds when processing lidar data was not particularly useful for
this study.
The LM technique with a variable window size considers fundamental forestbiometrics relationships. It seems more appropriate than the static LM filter or the
grid approach that arbitrarily selects only the highest values in a grid with a user
defined size (e.g. Næsset, 1997a). The terrain DEM lacks a field based estimation of
its accuracy, but judging by the results obtained for tree heights, it is assumed to
model the terrain topography fairly accurately. However, the study was based on a
rather limited sample of FIA subplots, with no stratification based on tree species or
age, and the lidar data were not fully exploited by neglecting secondary returns from
within the tree canopy. Thus, the analysis, though very encouraging, indicates apotential for improvements in stand height determination by using scanning laser
data. Further research on extracting other parameters, such as crown width, or
canopy closure, could help in improving estimates of volume and biomass.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the help provided with the field data collection by Dr
John Scrivani at the Virginia Department of Forestry, by Jan van Aardt, and
Rebecca Musy at Virginia Tech, Neil Clark at the USDA Forest Service, JaredWayman at Questerra, Inc., Karsten Nitsch at the University of Berlin, FIA crew
members at the Virginia Department of Forestry and Wayne Bowman, David
Houttekier, Donald Jamerson, and Ralph Totty at the Appomattox-Buckingham
Forest Office. This research has been supported by NASA Earth System Science
Fellowship Program (NGT5-30198), NASA Laboratory for Terrestrial Physics,
NCASI, McIntire-Stennis research program (VA-136589), Virginia Tech Depart-
ment of Forestry, and USDA Fund for a Rural America (97-36200-5231).
References
Axelsson, P., 1999. Processing of laser scanner data*/algorithms and applications. ISPRS Journal of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 54 (2�/3), 138�/147.
Ackermann, F., 1999. Airborne laser scanning*/present status and future expectations. ISPRS Journal of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 54 (2�/3), 64�/67.
Blair, B.J., Rabine, D.L., Hofton, M.A., 1999. The laser vegetation imaging sensor: a medium-altitude,
digitisation-only, airborne laser altimeter for mapping vegetation and topography. ISPRS Journal of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 54 (2�/3), 115�/122.
Bufton, J.L., Garvin, J.B., Cavanaugh, J.F., Ramos-Izquierdo, L., Clem, T.D., Krabill, W.B., 1991.
Airborne lidar for profiling of surface topography. Optical Engineering 30 (1), 72�/78.
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/95 93
Corvallis Microtechnology, Inc., 2001. CMT Products*/HP-GPS-L4. 2000. Available from http://
www.cmtinc.com/nav/frprod.html (March 1, 2001).
Daley, N.M.A., Burnett, C.N., Wulder, M., Niemann, L.O., Goodenough, D.G., 1998. Comparison of
fixed-size and variable-sized windows for the estimation of tree crown position. IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing.
Dubayah, R., Blair, J.B., Bufton, J.L., Clarke, D.B., Jaja, J., Knox, R., Luthcke, S.B., Prince, S.,
Weishampel, J., 1997. The vegetation canopy lidar mission. In: Land Satellite Information in the Next
Decade II: Sources and Applications. ASPRS Proceedings, Washington, DC.
EarthData, Inc., 2001. Technologies-Lidar. 2001. Available from http://www.earthdata.com/index2.htm
(March 5, 2001).
Flood, M., Gutelius, B., 1997. Commercial implications of topographic terrain mapping using scanning
airborne laser radar. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 63 (4), 327�/366.
Harding, D.J., Blair, J.B., Garvin, J.B., Laurence, W.T., 1994. Laser altimetry waveform measurement of
vegetation canopy structure. Proceedings of the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Symposium-IGARSS’94. ESA Scientific & Technical Pub. Noordwijk, The Netherlands, pp. 1251�/
1253.
Jaafar, J., Priestnall, G., Mather, P.M., Vieira, C.A., 1999. Construction of DEM from Lidar DSM using
morphological filtering, conventional statistical approaches and artificial neural networks. In: Earth
Observation: From Data to Information, Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference and Exhibition
of the Remote Sensing Society, University of Wales at Cardiff and Swansea, 8�/10 September, 1999,
pp. 299�/306.
Krabill, W.B., Collins, J.G., Link, L.E., Swift, R.N., Butler, M.L., 1984. Airborne laser topographic
mapping results. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 50 (6), 685�/694.
Kraus, K., Pfeifer, N., 1998. Determination of terrain models in wooded areas with airborne scanner data.
ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 53, 193�/203.
Lam, N.S., 1983. Spatial interpolation methods: a review. The American Cartographer 10 (2), 129�/149.
Lefsky, M.A., Cohen, W.B., Acker, S.A., Spies, T.A., Parker, G.G., Harding, D., 1997. Lidar remote
sensing of forest canopy structure and related biophysical parameters at the H.J. Andrews
experimental forest, Oregon, USA. In: Greer, J.D. (Ed.), Natural Resources Management using
Remote Sensing and GIS. ASPRS, Washington, DC, pp. 79�/91.
Lefsky, M.A., Harding, D., Cohen, W.B., Parker, G., Shugart, H.H., 1999. Surface lidar remote sensing of
basal area biomass in deciduous forests of eastern Maryland, USA. Remote Sensing of Environment
67, 83�/98.
Maclean, G.A., Krabill, W.B., 1986. Gross-merchantable timber volume estimation using an airborne
LIDAR system. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 12 (1), 7�/18.
Magnussen, S., Boudewyn, P., 1998. Derivations of stand heights from airborne laser scanner data with
canopy-based quartile estimators. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 28, 1016�/1031.
Magnussen, S., Eggermont, P., LaRiccia, V.N., 1999. Recovering tree heights from airborne laser scanner
data. Forest Science 45 (3), 407�/422.
Means, J.E., 2000. Comparison of large-footprint and small-footprint lidar systems: design, capabilities,
and uses. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Geospatial Information in
Agriculture and Foretry, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, 10�/12 January 2000: I-185�/192.
Means, J.E., Acker, S.A., Fitt, B.J., Renslow, M., Emerson, L., Hendrix, C., 2000. Predicting forest stand
characteristics with airborne scanning lidar. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 66
(11), 1367�/1371.
Means, J.E., Acker, S.A., Harding, D.J., Blair, J.B., Lefsky, M.A., Cohen, W.B., Harmon, M.E., McKee,
W.A., 1999. Use of large-footprint scanning airborne lidar to estimate forest stand characteristics in
the Western Cascades of Oregon. Remote Sensing of Environment 67, 298�/308.
Myers, R.H., 1990. Classical and modern regression with applications. The Duxbury advanced series in
statistics and decision sciences. PWS-Kent, Boston.
National Forest Inventory and Monitoring CORE Field Guide. Version 2, May 1998.
Næsset, E., 1997a. Determination of mean tree height of forest stands using airborne laser scanner data.
ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 52, 49�/56.
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/9594
Næsset, E., 1997b. Estimating timber volume of forest stands using airborne laser scanner data. Remote
Sensing of Environment 61 (2), 246�/253.
Nelson, R.F., Krabill, W.B., Maclean, G.A., 1984. Determining forest canopy characteristics using
airborne laser data. Remote Sensing of Environment 15, 201�/212.
Nelson, R.F., Swift, R., Krabill, W., 1988a. Using airborne lasers to estimate forest canopy and stand
characteristics. Journal of Forestry 86, 31�/38.
Nelson, R.F., Krabill, W., Tonelli, J., 1988b. Estimating forest biomass and volume using airborne laser
data. Remote Sensing of Environment 24, 247�/267.
Niemann, K.O., Adams, S., Hay, G., 1999. Automated tree crown identification using digital orthophoto
mosaics. In: Proceedings of the International Forum on Automated Interpretation of High Spatial
Resolution Digital Imagery for Forestry, Victoria, BC, Feb. 10�/12, 1998, Natural Resources Canada,
Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Center, pp. 105�/113.
Nilsson, M., 1996. Estimation of tree heights and stand volume using an airborne lidar system. Remote
Sensing of Environment 56, 1�/7.
Petzold, B., Reiss, P., Stossel, W., 1999. Laser scanning*/surveying and mapping agencies are using a new
technique for the derivation of digital terrain models. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote
Sensing 54, 95�/104.
Pinz, A., 1999. Tree isolation and species classification. In: Proceedings of the International Forum on
Automated Interpretation of High Spatial Resolution Digital Imagery for Forestry, Victoria, BC, Feb.
10�/12, 1998, Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Center, 127�/139.
Ritchie, J.C., 1995. Airborne laser altimeter measurements of landscape topography. Remote Sensing of
Environment 53, 91�/96.
Schreier, H., Lougheed, J., Tucker, C., Leckie, D., 1985. Automated measurements of terrain reflection
and height variations using and airborne infrared laser system. International Journal of Remote
Sensing 6 (1), 101�/113.
Weishampel, J.F., Harding, D.J., Boutet Jr., J.C., Drake ,J.B., 1997. Analysis of laser altimeter waveforms
for forested ecosystems of central Florida. Proceedings of SPIE: Advances in Laser Remote Sensing for
Terrestrial and Oceanographic Applications 3059, 184�/189.
Young, B., Evans, D.L., Parker, R.C., 2000. Methods for comparison of lidar and field measurements of
loblolly pine. In Proceedings: Second International Conference on Geospatial Information in
Agriculture and Foretry, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, 10�/12 January 2000: I-193�/199.
S.C. Popescu et al. / Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37 (2002) 71�/95 95