2016
DOI: 10.1007/s10310-016-0538-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Plot location errors of National Forest Inventory: related factors and adverse effects on continuity of plot data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 24 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One of the key issues of combining remote sensing-based CHMs and field data from national forest inventory for assessing forest parameters relates to the spatial adjustment of both data sources (Nakajima 2016;Johnson et al 2014). While 3D remote sensing data might provide a sub-metric accuracy in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions (Favorskaya and Jain 2017;Baltsavias 1999), the accuracy of field plots positioning is constrained by the interaction of the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signal with the canopy elements, resulting in accuracies of a few meters (~5 m) with low-cost differential GNSS measurements (Ransom et al 2010;Valbuena et al 2010;Danskin et al 2009;Wing and Eklund 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the key issues of combining remote sensing-based CHMs and field data from national forest inventory for assessing forest parameters relates to the spatial adjustment of both data sources (Nakajima 2016;Johnson et al 2014). While 3D remote sensing data might provide a sub-metric accuracy in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions (Favorskaya and Jain 2017;Baltsavias 1999), the accuracy of field plots positioning is constrained by the interaction of the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signal with the canopy elements, resulting in accuracies of a few meters (~5 m) with low-cost differential GNSS measurements (Ransom et al 2010;Valbuena et al 2010;Danskin et al 2009;Wing and Eklund 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%