2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2012.07.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Forest biomass estimation from airborne LiDAR data using machine learning approaches

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

8
162
0
3

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 269 publications
(173 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
8
162
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, if the feature selection is not adequate or does not exist, there would be little difference between RF and SVM (in our case, RF even globally outperformed SVM in most cases) as was shown in Table 4. This finding could justify the results of Gleason and Im [11] (where SVM outperformed RF) since the authors made the feature selection manually.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Moreover, if the feature selection is not adequate or does not exist, there would be little difference between RF and SVM (in our case, RF even globally outperformed SVM in most cases) as was shown in Table 4. This finding could justify the results of Gleason and Im [11] (where SVM outperformed RF) since the authors made the feature selection manually.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…For instance, Gleason and Im [11] showed a partial comparison of methods where support vector regression outperformed random forests. Unfortunately, no statistical validation was performed which is necessary to generalize their conclusions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Airborne light ranging and detecting (LiDAR) is the most commonly used system for deriving metrics from a forest area. There have been several studies on the use of airborne LiDAR platforms in forest areas that show accurate results (Breindenbach et al 2010;Gleason & Im 2012) with the use of Unmanned aerial vehiclesLiDAR (UAV-LiDAR) platforms (Wallace et al 2014a;Wallace et al 2014b) and even with spaceborne LiDAR platforms (Selkowitz et al 2012). However, short flight sessions and the high cost of these surveys with experienced personnel prevent continuous studies (Wallace et al 2012;Zarco-Tejada et al 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tesfamichael et al, 2010;Dalponte et al, 2011;Sun et al, 2011) but in the last years, modern regression techniques (e.g. random forests or regression trees) have been paid increasing attention for regression on LiDAR (Gleason and Im, 2012;García-Gutierrez et al, 2011.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%