Comparison of three global canopy height maps and their applicability to biodiversity modeling: Accuracy issues revealed

IF 2.7 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ECOLOGY
Ecosphere Pub Date : 2024-10-14 DOI:10.1002/ecs2.70026
Vítězslav Moudrý, Lukáš Gábor, Suzanne Marselis, Petra Pracná, Vojtěch Barták, Jiří Prošek, Barbora Navrátilová, Jan Novotný, Markéta Potůčková, Kateřina Gdulová, Pablo Crespo-Peremarch, Jan Komárek, Marco Malavasi, Duccio Rocchini, Luis A. Ruiz, Jesús Torralba, Michele Torresani, Roberto Cazzolla Gatti, Jan Wild
{"title":"Comparison of three global canopy height maps and their applicability to biodiversity modeling: Accuracy issues revealed","authors":"Vítězslav Moudrý,&nbsp;Lukáš Gábor,&nbsp;Suzanne Marselis,&nbsp;Petra Pracná,&nbsp;Vojtěch Barták,&nbsp;Jiří Prošek,&nbsp;Barbora Navrátilová,&nbsp;Jan Novotný,&nbsp;Markéta Potůčková,&nbsp;Kateřina Gdulová,&nbsp;Pablo Crespo-Peremarch,&nbsp;Jan Komárek,&nbsp;Marco Malavasi,&nbsp;Duccio Rocchini,&nbsp;Luis A. Ruiz,&nbsp;Jesús Torralba,&nbsp;Michele Torresani,&nbsp;Roberto Cazzolla Gatti,&nbsp;Jan Wild","doi":"10.1002/ecs2.70026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Global mapping of forest height is an extremely important task for estimating habitat quality and modeling biodiversity. Recently, three global canopy height maps have been released, the global forest canopy height map (GFCH), the high-resolution canopy height model of the Earth (HRCH), and the global map of tree canopy height (GMTCH). Here, we assessed their accuracy and usability for biodiversity modeling. We examined their accuracy by comparing them with the reference canopy height models derived from airborne laser scanning (ALS). Our results show considerable differences between the evaluated maps. The root mean square error ranged between 10 and 18 m for GFCH, 9–11 m for HRCH, and 10–17 m for GMTCH, respectively. GFCH and GMTCH consistently underestimated the height of all canopies regardless of their height, while HRCH tended to overestimate the height of low canopies and underestimate tall canopies. Biodiversity models using predicted global canopy height maps as input data are sufficient for estimating simple relationships between species occurrence and canopy height, but their use leads to a considerable decrease in the discrimination ability of the models and to mischaracterization of species niches where derived indices (e.g., canopy height heterogeneity) are concerned. We showed that canopy height heterogeneity is considerably underestimated in the evaluated global canopy height maps. We urge that for temperate areas rich in ALS data, activities should concentrate on harmonizing ALS canopy height maps rather than relying on modeled global products.</p>","PeriodicalId":48930,"journal":{"name":"Ecosphere","volume":"15 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ecs2.70026","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecosphere","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecs2.70026","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Global mapping of forest height is an extremely important task for estimating habitat quality and modeling biodiversity. Recently, three global canopy height maps have been released, the global forest canopy height map (GFCH), the high-resolution canopy height model of the Earth (HRCH), and the global map of tree canopy height (GMTCH). Here, we assessed their accuracy and usability for biodiversity modeling. We examined their accuracy by comparing them with the reference canopy height models derived from airborne laser scanning (ALS). Our results show considerable differences between the evaluated maps. The root mean square error ranged between 10 and 18 m for GFCH, 9–11 m for HRCH, and 10–17 m for GMTCH, respectively. GFCH and GMTCH consistently underestimated the height of all canopies regardless of their height, while HRCH tended to overestimate the height of low canopies and underestimate tall canopies. Biodiversity models using predicted global canopy height maps as input data are sufficient for estimating simple relationships between species occurrence and canopy height, but their use leads to a considerable decrease in the discrimination ability of the models and to mischaracterization of species niches where derived indices (e.g., canopy height heterogeneity) are concerned. We showed that canopy height heterogeneity is considerably underestimated in the evaluated global canopy height maps. We urge that for temperate areas rich in ALS data, activities should concentrate on harmonizing ALS canopy height maps rather than relying on modeled global products.

Abstract Image

比较三种全球树冠高度图及其对生物多样性建模的适用性:揭示精度问题
绘制全球森林高度图是估算栖息地质量和建立生物多样性模型的一项极其重要的工作。最近发布了三种全球冠层高度地图,即全球森林冠层高度地图(GFCH)、高分辨率地球冠层高度模型(HRCH)和全球树木冠层高度地图(GMTCH)。在此,我们评估了它们在生物多样性建模方面的准确性和可用性。我们将它们与机载激光扫描(ALS)得出的参考树冠高度模型进行了比较,从而检验了它们的准确性。结果表明,所评估的地图之间存在很大差异。GFCH 的均方根误差在 10 到 18 米之间,HRCH 为 9 到 11 米,GMTCH 为 10 到 17 米。无论树冠高度如何,GFCH 和 GMTCH 始终低估了所有树冠的高度,而 HRCH 则倾向于高估低矮树冠的高度,低估高大树冠的高度。使用预测的全球冠层高度图作为输入数据的生物多样性模型足以估算物种出现与冠层高度之间的简单关系,但其使用会导致模型的判别能力大大降低,并在涉及衍生指数(如冠层高度异质性)时导致物种生态位的错误描述。我们的研究表明,在已评估的全球冠层高度图中,冠层高度异质性被大大低估了。我们呼吁,对于 ALS 数据丰富的温带地区,应集中精力协调 ALS 树冠高度图,而不是依赖全球模型产品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ecosphere
Ecosphere ECOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
378
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: The scope of Ecosphere is as broad as the science of ecology itself. The journal welcomes submissions from all sub-disciplines of ecological science, as well as interdisciplinary studies relating to ecology. The journal''s goal is to provide a rapid-publication, online-only, open-access alternative to ESA''s other journals, while maintaining the rigorous standards of peer review for which ESA publications are renowned.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信