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":"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","authors":"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","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":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of three global canopy height maps and their applicability to biodiversity modeling: Accuracy issues revealed\",\"authors\":\"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\",\"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}","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}
Comparison of three global canopy height maps and their applicability to biodiversity modeling: Accuracy issues revealed
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.
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.