José Luis Hernández‐Stefanoni, Luis A. Hernández‐Martínez, Juan Andres‐Mauricio, Víctor Alexis Peña‐Lara, Karina Elizabeth González‐Muñoz, Fernando Tun‐Dzul, Carlos A. Portillo‐Quintero, Eric Antonio Gamboa‐Blanco, Stephanie George‐Chacon
{"title":"利用GEDI和国家森林清查数据研究墨西哥地上森林生物量的空间分布和驱动因素","authors":"José Luis Hernández‐Stefanoni, Luis A. Hernández‐Martínez, Juan Andres‐Mauricio, Víctor Alexis Peña‐Lara, Karina Elizabeth González‐Muñoz, Fernando Tun‐Dzul, Carlos A. Portillo‐Quintero, Eric Antonio Gamboa‐Blanco, Stephanie George‐Chacon","doi":"10.1002/rse2.70019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Accurate assessment of forest aboveground biomass density (AGBD) is essential for understanding the role of vegetation in climate change mitigation and developing forest management and environmental policies at national and regional levels. The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) uses full‐waveform LiDAR and provides a valuable tool for estimating AGBD. Calibrating GEDI biomass products with local field data is vital for improving model accuracy, as current estimates rely on global datasets. Additionally, evaluating key factors that influence biomass estimation is essential to refine GEDI‐based models. In this research, we calibrated linear models with field AGBD as the dependent variable and GEDI metrics as independent variables, and compared the performance against the GEDI L4A product across forest types. Additionally, we evaluated the effects of terrain slope, forest structural complexity, and forest type on the accuracy of the models. Finally, we mapped AGBD in Mexico by aggregating footprint‐level estimates with local models and compared it with the GEDI AGBD map (L4B product). Model validation showed <jats:italic>R</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> values from 0.35 to 0.46 across forest types, with most models having %RMSE below 52.0. Errors were 32.7 to 34.2% lower than GEDI L4A, highlighting a notable accuracy improvement. The total carbon stocks in Mexico estimated here are approximately 1.78 Gt, aligning closely with official FAO estimates, whereas GEDI estimates are 33.5% higher than the official estimate. Biomass estimation with GEDI is most accurate in areas with moderate slopes and low forest structural complexity. Coniferous and tropical forests showed the lowest errors in estimating AGBD with GEDI (46.7 and 47.3 of %RMSE, respectively) likely due to the widespread presence of uniformly structured coniferous trees and the moderate terrain slopes found in tropical forests. Our findings highlight the importance of calibrating local AGBD data with GEDI forest structure metrics to improve biomass estimations at the footprint and national levels.","PeriodicalId":21132,"journal":{"name":"Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Spatial distribution and drivers of aboveground forest biomass in Mexico using GEDI and national forest inventory data\",\"authors\":\"José Luis Hernández‐Stefanoni, Luis A. Hernández‐Martínez, Juan Andres‐Mauricio, Víctor Alexis Peña‐Lara, Karina Elizabeth González‐Muñoz, Fernando Tun‐Dzul, Carlos A. Portillo‐Quintero, Eric Antonio Gamboa‐Blanco, Stephanie George‐Chacon\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/rse2.70019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Accurate assessment of forest aboveground biomass density (AGBD) is essential for understanding the role of vegetation in climate change mitigation and developing forest management and environmental policies at national and regional levels. The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) uses full‐waveform LiDAR and provides a valuable tool for estimating AGBD. Calibrating GEDI biomass products with local field data is vital for improving model accuracy, as current estimates rely on global datasets. Additionally, evaluating key factors that influence biomass estimation is essential to refine GEDI‐based models. In this research, we calibrated linear models with field AGBD as the dependent variable and GEDI metrics as independent variables, and compared the performance against the GEDI L4A product across forest types. Additionally, we evaluated the effects of terrain slope, forest structural complexity, and forest type on the accuracy of the models. Finally, we mapped AGBD in Mexico by aggregating footprint‐level estimates with local models and compared it with the GEDI AGBD map (L4B product). Model validation showed <jats:italic>R</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> values from 0.35 to 0.46 across forest types, with most models having %RMSE below 52.0. Errors were 32.7 to 34.2% lower than GEDI L4A, highlighting a notable accuracy improvement. The total carbon stocks in Mexico estimated here are approximately 1.78 Gt, aligning closely with official FAO estimates, whereas GEDI estimates are 33.5% higher than the official estimate. Biomass estimation with GEDI is most accurate in areas with moderate slopes and low forest structural complexity. Coniferous and tropical forests showed the lowest errors in estimating AGBD with GEDI (46.7 and 47.3 of %RMSE, respectively) likely due to the widespread presence of uniformly structured coniferous trees and the moderate terrain slopes found in tropical forests. Our findings highlight the importance of calibrating local AGBD data with GEDI forest structure metrics to improve biomass estimations at the footprint and national levels.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21132,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.70019\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.70019","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Spatial distribution and drivers of aboveground forest biomass in Mexico using GEDI and national forest inventory data
Accurate assessment of forest aboveground biomass density (AGBD) is essential for understanding the role of vegetation in climate change mitigation and developing forest management and environmental policies at national and regional levels. The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) uses full‐waveform LiDAR and provides a valuable tool for estimating AGBD. Calibrating GEDI biomass products with local field data is vital for improving model accuracy, as current estimates rely on global datasets. Additionally, evaluating key factors that influence biomass estimation is essential to refine GEDI‐based models. In this research, we calibrated linear models with field AGBD as the dependent variable and GEDI metrics as independent variables, and compared the performance against the GEDI L4A product across forest types. Additionally, we evaluated the effects of terrain slope, forest structural complexity, and forest type on the accuracy of the models. Finally, we mapped AGBD in Mexico by aggregating footprint‐level estimates with local models and compared it with the GEDI AGBD map (L4B product). Model validation showed R2 values from 0.35 to 0.46 across forest types, with most models having %RMSE below 52.0. Errors were 32.7 to 34.2% lower than GEDI L4A, highlighting a notable accuracy improvement. The total carbon stocks in Mexico estimated here are approximately 1.78 Gt, aligning closely with official FAO estimates, whereas GEDI estimates are 33.5% higher than the official estimate. Biomass estimation with GEDI is most accurate in areas with moderate slopes and low forest structural complexity. Coniferous and tropical forests showed the lowest errors in estimating AGBD with GEDI (46.7 and 47.3 of %RMSE, respectively) likely due to the widespread presence of uniformly structured coniferous trees and the moderate terrain slopes found in tropical forests. Our findings highlight the importance of calibrating local AGBD data with GEDI forest structure metrics to improve biomass estimations at the footprint and national levels.
期刊介绍:
emote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation provides a forum for rapid, peer-reviewed publication of novel, multidisciplinary research at the interface between remote sensing science and ecology and conservation. The journal prioritizes findings that advance the scientific basis of ecology and conservation, promoting the development of remote-sensing based methods relevant to the management of land use and biological systems at all levels, from populations and species to ecosystems and biomes. The journal defines remote sensing in its broadest sense, including data acquisition by hand-held and fixed ground-based sensors, such as camera traps and acoustic recorders, and sensors on airplanes and satellites. The intended journal’s audience includes ecologists, conservation scientists, policy makers, managers of terrestrial and aquatic systems, remote sensing scientists, and students.
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation is a fully open access journal from Wiley and the Zoological Society of London. Remote sensing has enormous potential as to provide information on the state of, and pressures on, biological diversity and ecosystem services, at multiple spatial and temporal scales. This new publication provides a forum for multidisciplinary research in remote sensing science, ecological research and conservation science.