Evaluation of Single Photon and Geiger Mode Lidar for the 3D Elevation Program

Stoker, Jason M.; Abdullah, Qassim A.; Nayegandhi, Amar; Winehouse, Jayna

doi:10.3390/rs8090767

Cited by 67 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first system produced 25 points per square meter from an altitude of 7540 m above ground and the latter system produced 23 points per square meter from an altitude of 2293 m above ground level. As a comparison, typical conventional linear systems currently produce 2-4 measurements per square meter from a flight altitude of 2200 m above ground or lower [92]. Also, the flight speed can be higher with the new systems, which together with high flight altitude means that the coverage rate (km 2 /h) can increase up to 30 times compared with conventional linear systems [93].…”

Section: High Resolution Data From New Sensorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Tree Crown Methods for 3D Data from Remote Sensing

Lindberg

Holmgren

2017

Curr Forestry Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review The rapid development of remote sensing technology has made dense 3D data available from airborne laser scanning and recently also photogrammetric point clouds. This paper reviews methods for extraction of individual trees from 3D data and their applications in forestry and ecology. Recent Findings Methods for analysis of 3D data at tree level have been developed since the turn of the century. The first algorithms were based on 2D surface models of the upper contours of tree crowns. These methods are robust and provide information about the trees in the top-most canopy. There are also methods that use the complete 3D data. However, development of these 3D methods is still needed to include use of geometric properties. To detect a large fraction of the tallest trees, a surface model method generally gives the best results, but detection of smaller trees below the top-most canopy requires methods utilizing the whole point cloud. Several new sensors are now available with capability to describe the upper part of the canopy, which can be used to frequently update vegetation maps. Highly sensitive laser photo detectors have become available for civilian applications, which will enable acquisition of high-resolution 3D laser data for large areas to much lower costs. Summary Methods for ITC delineation from 3D data provide information about a large fraction of the trees, but there is still a challenge to make optimal use of the information from the whole point cloud. Newly developed sensors might make ITC methods cheaper and feasible for large areas.

show abstract

Section: High Resolution Data From New Sensorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Tree Crown Methods for 3D Data from Remote Sensing

Lindberg

Holmgren

2017

Curr Forestry Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, technological advancements like next-generation lidar sensors and on-demand lidar via UAS should greatly enhance how dynamic habitats like barrier islands are monitored. As data availability increases, this approach could be calibrated with next-generation lidar sensors such as single photon and Geiger-mode lidar platforms which enable data collection with much higher nominal point spacing (e.g., greater than 20 points per m 2 ) as compared to conventional linear lidar (i.e., lidar used in this study was about 6 points per m 2 ) [22] or data collected via on-demand lidar via an UAS [23,24]. Another potential improvement of using these methods with UAS data would be the ability to collect elevation data and optical imagery concurrently.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Lidar Elevation Uncertainty on Mapping Intertidal Habitats on Barrier Islands

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While airborne lidar data have revolutionized the spatial resolution that elevations can be realized, data limitations are often magnified in coastal settings. Researchers have found that airborne lidar can have a vertical error as high as 60 cm in densely vegetated intertidal areas. The uncertainty of digital elevation models is often left unaddressed; however, in low-relief environments, such as barrier islands, centimeter differences in elevation can affect exposure to physically demanding abiotic conditions, which greatly influence ecosystem structure and function. In this study, we used airborne lidar elevation data, in situ elevation observations, lidar metadata, and tide gauge information to delineate low-lying lands and the intertidal wetlands on Dauphin Island, a barrier island along the coast of Alabama, USA. We compared three different elevation error treatments, which included leaving error untreated and treatments that used Monte Carlo simulations to incorporate elevation vertical uncertainty using general information from lidar metadata and site-specific Real-Time Kinematic Global Position System data, respectively. To aid researchers in instances where limited information is available for error propagation, we conducted a sensitivity test to assess the effect of minor changes to error and bias. Treatment of error with site-specific observations produced the fewest omission errors, although the treatment using the lidar metadata had the most well-balanced results. The percent coverage of intertidal wetlands was increased by up to 80% when treating the vertical error of the digital elevation models. Based on the results from the sensitivity analysis, it could be reasonable to use error and positive bias values from literature for similar environments, conditions, and lidar acquisition characteristics in the event that collection of site-specific data is not feasible and information in the lidar metadata is insufficient. The methodology presented in this study should increase efficiency and enhance results for habitat mapping and analyses in dynamic, low-relief coastal environments.

show abstract

“…Degnan (2016) charts the development of SP lidar and compares the technology with its GM counterpart. Stoker et al (2016) evaluated both SP and GM lidar for use in the United States 3D Elevation Program (3DEP). Whilst the technology was found not to meet the required specification for the 3DEP, the authors recognised that this was at least partly due to the specification having been written specifically for conventional lidar systems.…”

Section: Sp and Gm Lidar Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%