Ziqiang Wu , Xin Liu , Shoumin Cheng , Chenhui Yang , Zongquan Wang , Yongshuai Liu , Lihu Dong , Fengri Li , Yuanshuo Hao
{"title":"Evaluating the effectiveness of forest type stratification for aboveground biomass inference","authors":"Ziqiang Wu , Xin Liu , Shoumin Cheng , Chenhui Yang , Zongquan Wang , Yongshuai Liu , Lihu Dong , Fengri Li , Yuanshuo Hao","doi":"10.1016/j.jag.2025.104829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Accurate quantification of aboveground biomass (AGB) in heterogeneous forest ecosystems is critical for reliable carbon cycle modeling and the effective climate policy development. Although remote sensing-assisted methods have significantly enhanced estimation efficiency, the impact of forest type stratification on estimation accuracy remains insufficiently investigated, especially when classified forest types from remote sensing data are used. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive comparison between model-assisted (MA) and model-based (MB) estimators and conventional simple random sampling (SRS) estimators under three different stratified or nonstratified scenarios: (A) a nonstratified estimation framework; (B) stratified estimation employing error-free forest type maps; and (C) stratified estimation predicated on classification results from remote sensing. Additionally, we assessed the effect of model specification—whether using a general model or strata-specific models—on estimation accuracy within stratified frameworks. The results showed that both the MA and MB estimators outperformed the SRS estimator. Stratification with ground truth reference maps significantly enhanced estimation accuracy, especially for the variance of the MB estimator employing strata-specific models is reduced from 13.65 t/ha to 10.42 t/ha, with the highest relative efficiency (RE = 2.95) achieved by the error-free stratified MA estimator using a general model. However, classification errors in remote sensing-derived maps substantially reduced these benefits, often leading to estimation variances exceeding those of the unstratified approach. Specifically, the variances of estimators MA and MB have increased from 8.89 t/ha to 24.17 t/ha, and from 10.42 t/ha to 23.65 t/ha, respectively. The predominant source of error was model misassignment due to misclassified forest types. This study provides a practical framework for estimating regional forest AGB using remote sensing data and offers decision support for the scientific formulation of forest management and sustainable utilization plans.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73423,"journal":{"name":"International journal of applied earth observation and geoinformation : ITC journal","volume":"143 ","pages":"Article 104829"},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of applied earth observation and geoinformation : ITC journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1569843225004765","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REMOTE SENSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Accurate quantification of aboveground biomass (AGB) in heterogeneous forest ecosystems is critical for reliable carbon cycle modeling and the effective climate policy development. Although remote sensing-assisted methods have significantly enhanced estimation efficiency, the impact of forest type stratification on estimation accuracy remains insufficiently investigated, especially when classified forest types from remote sensing data are used. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive comparison between model-assisted (MA) and model-based (MB) estimators and conventional simple random sampling (SRS) estimators under three different stratified or nonstratified scenarios: (A) a nonstratified estimation framework; (B) stratified estimation employing error-free forest type maps; and (C) stratified estimation predicated on classification results from remote sensing. Additionally, we assessed the effect of model specification—whether using a general model or strata-specific models—on estimation accuracy within stratified frameworks. The results showed that both the MA and MB estimators outperformed the SRS estimator. Stratification with ground truth reference maps significantly enhanced estimation accuracy, especially for the variance of the MB estimator employing strata-specific models is reduced from 13.65 t/ha to 10.42 t/ha, with the highest relative efficiency (RE = 2.95) achieved by the error-free stratified MA estimator using a general model. However, classification errors in remote sensing-derived maps substantially reduced these benefits, often leading to estimation variances exceeding those of the unstratified approach. Specifically, the variances of estimators MA and MB have increased from 8.89 t/ha to 24.17 t/ha, and from 10.42 t/ha to 23.65 t/ha, respectively. The predominant source of error was model misassignment due to misclassified forest types. This study provides a practical framework for estimating regional forest AGB using remote sensing data and offers decision support for the scientific formulation of forest management and sustainable utilization plans.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation publishes original papers that utilize earth observation data for natural resource and environmental inventory and management. These data primarily originate from remote sensing platforms, including satellites and aircraft, supplemented by surface and subsurface measurements. Addressing natural resources such as forests, agricultural land, soils, and water, as well as environmental concerns like biodiversity, land degradation, and hazards, the journal explores conceptual and data-driven approaches. It covers geoinformation themes like capturing, databasing, visualization, interpretation, data quality, and spatial uncertainty.