4.3 Article

Assessing Performance of Tomo-SAR and Backscattering Coefficient for Hemi-Boreal Forest Aboveground Biomass Estimation

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12524-015-0468-y

关键词

Tomo-SAR; Pol-InSAR; Forest aboveground biomass (AGB); Hemi-boreal forest; Backscattering coefficient; Vertical backscattering power

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41401480]
  2. National key basic research development program (973 Program) [2013CB733404]
  3. Introduction talent project in Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications [NY213105]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tomo-SAR technique has been used for hemi-boreal forest height and further forest biomass estimation through allometric equation. Backscattering coefficient especially in longer wavelength (L- or P-band) is thought as a useful parameter for hemi-boreal forest biomass retrieval. The aim of this paper is to assess the performance of vertical backscattering power and backscattering coefficient for hemi-boreal forest aboveground biomass (AGB) estimation with airborne P-band data. The test site locates in southern Sweden called Remningstorp test site, and the in-situ forest AGB ranges from 14 t/ha to 245 t/ha at stand level. Multi-baseline P-band Pol-InSAR data in repeat-path mode collected during March and May in 2007 at Remningstorp test site was used. We found that the correlation coefficient (R) between backscattering coefficient of P-band HH polarization and the in-situ forest biomass reached 0.87. The R for P-band VV backscattering power at 5 m is 0.71 and 10 m is 0.72. Backscattering coefficient in HH polarization and vertical backscattering power at 5 m and 10 m were applied to construct a model for hemi-boreal forest AGB estimation by backward step-wise regression and cross-validation approach. The results showed that the estimated forest AGB ranges from 19 to 240 t/ha, and the constructed model obtained a higher R and smaller RMSE, the value of R is 0.91, RMSE is 30.43 t/ha at Remningstorp test site.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据