Uncertainty Analysis of Forest Aboveground Carbon Stock Estimation Combining Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 Images

Abstract

Accurate estimation of forest aboveground carbon stock (AGC) is essential for understanding carbon accounting and climate change. In previous studies, the extracted factors, such as spectral textures, vegetation indices, and textural features, were used to estimate the AGC. However, few studies examined how different factors affect estimation accuracy in detail. Meanwhile, there are also many uncertainties in the collection and processing of the field data. To quantify the various uncertainties in the process of AGC estimation, we used the random forest (RF) to establish estimation models based on field data and Sentinel-1/2 images in Shangri-La. The models included the band information model (BIM), the vegetation index model (VIM), the texture information model (TIM), the Sentinel-2 factor model (S-2M), and the Sentinel-1/2 factor model (S-1/2M). Then, uncertainties resulting from the plot scale and estimation models were calculated using error equations. Our goal is to analyze the influence of different factors on AGC estimation and to assess the uncertainty of plot scale and estimation models quantitatively. The results showed that (1) the uncertainty of the measurement was 3.02%, while the error of the monocarbon stock model was the main uncertainty at the plot scale, which was 9.09%; (2) the BIM had the lowest accuracy (R2 = 0.551) and the highest total uncertainty (22.29%); by gradually introducing different factors in the process of modeling, the accuracies improved significantly (VIM: R2 = 0.688, TIM: R2 = 0.715, S-2M: R2 = 0.826), and the total uncertainty decreased to some extent (VIM: 14.12%, TIM: 12.56%, S-2M: 10.79%); (3) the S-1/2M with the introduction of Sentinel-1 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data has the highest accuracy (R2 = 0.872) and the lowest total uncertainty (8.43%). The inaccuracy of spectral features is highest, followed by vegetation indices, while textural features have the lowest inaccuracy. Uncertainty in the remote-sensing-based estimation model remains a significant source of uncertainty compared to the plot scale. Even though the uncertainty at the plot scale is relatively small, this error should not be ignored. The uncertainty in the estimation process could be further reduced by improving the precision of the measurement and the fitting of the monocarbon stock estimation model.