评价森林类型分层对地上生物量推断的有效性

IF 8.6 Q1 REMOTE SENSING
Ziqiang Wu , Xin Liu , Shoumin Cheng , Chenhui Yang , Zongquan Wang , Yongshuai Liu , Lihu Dong , Fengri Li , Yuanshuo Hao
{"title":"评价森林类型分层对地上生物量推断的有效性","authors":"Ziqiang Wu ,&nbsp;Xin Liu ,&nbsp;Shoumin Cheng ,&nbsp;Chenhui Yang ,&nbsp;Zongquan Wang ,&nbsp;Yongshuai Liu ,&nbsp;Lihu Dong ,&nbsp;Fengri Li ,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the effectiveness of forest type stratification for aboveground biomass inference\",\"authors\":\"Ziqiang Wu ,&nbsp;Xin Liu ,&nbsp;Shoumin Cheng ,&nbsp;Chenhui Yang ,&nbsp;Zongquan Wang ,&nbsp;Yongshuai Liu ,&nbsp;Lihu Dong ,&nbsp;Fengri Li ,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

非均质森林生态系统地上生物量(AGB)的准确量化对于建立可靠的碳循环模型和制定有效的气候政策至关重要。虽然遥感辅助方法显著提高了估算效率,但森林类型分层对估算精度的影响仍未得到充分研究,特别是在使用遥感数据分类的森林类型时。在本研究中,我们在三种不同的分层或非分层情景下,对模型辅助(MA)和基于模型(MB)估计器与传统简单随机抽样(SRS)估计器进行了全面比较:(a)非分层估计框架;(B)采用无误差森林类型图分层估计;(C)基于遥感分类结果的分层估计。此外,我们评估了模型规范的影响——无论是使用一般模型还是特定于层的模型——对分层框架内估计精度的影响。结果表明,MA和MB估计都优于SRS估计。使用地真值参考图分层显著提高了估计精度,特别是使用特定层模型的MB估计器的方差从13.65 t/ha降至10.42 t/ha,使用一般模型的无误差分层MA估计器的相对效率最高(RE = 2.95)。然而,遥感地图的分类错误大大减少了这些好处,往往导致估计偏差超过非分层方法的估计偏差。其中,MA和MB的方差分别从8.89 t/ha和10.42 t/ha增加到24.17 t/ha。误差的主要来源是由于森林类型分类错误导致的模型错配。本研究为利用遥感数据估算区域森林AGB提供了实用框架,为科学制定森林经营和可持续利用计划提供了决策支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating the effectiveness of forest type stratification for aboveground biomass inference
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International journal of applied earth observation and geoinformation : ITC journal
International journal of applied earth observation and geoinformation : ITC journal Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Earth-Surface Processes, Computers in Earth Sciences
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
77 days
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信