2006
DOI: 10.4287/jsprs.45.4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimating forest resources using airbone LiDAR-Estimating stand parameters of Sugi (Cryptomeria japonica D. Don) and Hinoki (Chamaecyparis obtusa Endl.) stands with differing densities.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In our previous study (Takahashi et al 2006), the laser penetration rate in the hinoki cypress stand (1.1%) was found to be lower than that in the sugi stand (8.1%), and it was often much lower than the rates reported in the previous studies (e.g., Naesset 2002;Naesset and Økland 2002;Popescu et al 2002;Hollaus et al 2006). Matsue et al (2006) also reported a lower laser penetration rate for the last-pulses in hinoki cypress stands (2% on average) than that in sugi stands (24% on average). Naesset (2002) reported that the mean laser penetration rates varied between 17 and 38% in areas covered by Norway spruce and Scots pine, and Hollaus et al (2006) also reported the laser penetration rate in areas mainly covered by a dense coniferous forest as 17% for winter first pulse data and 13% for summer first pulse data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…In our previous study (Takahashi et al 2006), the laser penetration rate in the hinoki cypress stand (1.1%) was found to be lower than that in the sugi stand (8.1%), and it was often much lower than the rates reported in the previous studies (e.g., Naesset 2002;Naesset and Økland 2002;Popescu et al 2002;Hollaus et al 2006). Matsue et al (2006) also reported a lower laser penetration rate for the last-pulses in hinoki cypress stands (2% on average) than that in sugi stands (24% on average). Naesset (2002) reported that the mean laser penetration rates varied between 17 and 38% in areas covered by Norway spruce and Scots pine, and Hollaus et al (2006) also reported the laser penetration rate in areas mainly covered by a dense coniferous forest as 17% for winter first pulse data and 13% for summer first pulse data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…Oono et al (2008) studied that with an increase in tree density, the detection accuracy decreases by 10 to 20%, especially within a dense forest stand. Matsue et al (2006) emphasized that stand density and crown shape highly influence tree detection rates, where overlapping crowns cannot be completely differentiated by the filtering process. In most studies, the detected crowns were observed to be the dominant layer, where the understory layer remains unseen.…”
Section: Height Estimation and Tree Detection Based On Plot Level Assmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Airbone LiDAR systems emit laser pulses from the air to the ground to measure distance to ground objects, making the measurement of 3D structures possible [43]. Various forest-related applications have been executed over large areas, including estimation of tree height and stem density [44]; analysis of the relationship between tree height and topography [45]; evaluation of forest degradation [20]; estimation of biomass [32,[46][47][48][49][50][51]; classification of species using vertical and horizontal texture, degree of leaf clumping, gap distribution, and canopy shape [29,[52][53][54][55]; gap mapping [56]; and gap monitoring [57][58][59]. LiDAR data have also been used to estimate PAI and vertical plant area density (PAD) distribution [60][61][62][63].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%