Remote Sensing · 2011 · 67 citations · 50 references
Natural ResourcesEarth SciencesForestryForest EcologyForest InventoryRemote SensingBiomass EstimationBiomass Resource AssessmentCarbon Stock EstimationRemote Sensing For Forest InventoryVegetation IndicesVegetation MonitoringBiomass Prediction ModelsCarbon Cycling DynamicsForest Biomass PredictionForest Carbon DynamicsRemote Sensing Biomass EstimationRemote Sensing-based EstimationSatellite Remote Sensing DataSatellite-based Forest Inventory
Understanding the potential of forest ecosystems as global carbon sinks requires a thorough knowledge of forest carbon dynamics, including both sequestration and fluxes among multiple pools. The accurate quantification of biomass is important to better understand forest productivity and carbon cycling dynamics. Stand-based inventories (SBIs) are widely used for quantifying forest characteristics and for estimating biomass, but information may quickly become outdated in dynamic forest environments. Satellite remote sensing may provide a supplement or substitute. We tested the accuracy of aboveground biomass estimates modeled from a combination of Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery and topographic data, as well as SBI-derived variables in a Picea abies forest in the Western Carpathian Mountains. We employed Random Forests for non-parametric, regression tree-based modeling. Results indicated a difference in the importance of SBI-based and remote sensing-based predictors when estimating aboveground biomass. The most accurate models for biomass prediction ranged from a correlation coefficient of 0.52 for the TM- and topography-based model, to 0.98 for the inventory-based model. While Landsat-based biomass estimates were measurably less accurate than those derived from SBI, adding tree height or stand-volume as a field-based predictor to TM and topography-based models increased performance to 0.36 and 0.86, respectively. Our results illustrate the potential of spectral data to reveal spatial details in stand structure and ecological complexity.
50
Leo Breiman · Machine Learning · 2001 · 126.2K citations · Full text
Classification and Regression Trees.
Alexander Gordon, Leo Breiman, Jerome H. Friedman et al. · Biometrics · 1984 · 23.9K citations
Classification and Regression Trees.
John Van Ryzin, Leo Breiman, Jerome H. Friedman et al. · Journal of the American Statistical Association · 1986 · 21K citations
Classification and Regression by randomForest
Andy Liaw, Matthew C. Wiener · 2007 · 18.4K citations
RANDOM FORESTS FOR CLASSIFICATION IN ECOLOGY
D. Richard Cutler, Thomas C. Edwards, Karen H. Beard et al. · Ecology · 2007 · 4.8K citations