1 / 32

Imputing species-level plot basal area and tree density attributes from remotely sensed data in north-central Idaho

Imputing species-level plot basal area and tree density attributes from remotely sensed data in north-central Idaho. Andrew T. Hudak Nicholas L. Crookston Jeffrey S. Evans Rocky Mountain Research Station Moscow. Idaho.

bernad
Download Presentation

Imputing species-level plot basal area and tree density attributes from remotely sensed data in north-central Idaho

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Imputing species-level plot basal area and tree density attributes from remotely sensed data in north-central Idaho Andrew T. Hudak Nicholas L. Crookston Jeffrey S. Evans Rocky Mountain Research Station Moscow. Idaho

  2. Location map of the Moscow Mountain and St. Joe Woodlands lidar study areas Hudak et al., CJRS 32:126-138.

  3. Hudak et al., CJRS 32:126-138.

  4. Hudak et al., CJRS 32:126-138.

  5. Scatterplots of predictions versus observations (N = 165) for ln-transformed a) basal area and b) tree density and natural scale c) basal area and d) tree density (lines indicate 1:1 relationship; “∆” = Moscow Mountain plots; “+” = St. Joe Woodlands plots) Hudak et al., CJRS 32:126-138.

  6. Objective: Impute plot-level Y variables (available at limited, discrete locations) using pixel-level, remotely sensed X variables (available globally) Why? So we can map Y variables of interest

  7. Lidar acquired summer 2003; 55,000 ha 81 plots, 2003 & 2004 field seasons Lidar acquired summer 2003; 32,000 ha 84 plots, 2003 & 2004 field seasons

  8. Sampling and Scaling Issues Y variables measured at plot scales: 1/10 acre (Moscow Mt.) = 405 m2 1/5 acre (St. Joe) = 810 m2 X variables measured at pixel scales: 1 m x 1 m = 1 m2 2 m x 2 m = 4 m2 6 m x 6 m = 36 m2 10 m x 10 m = 100 m2 30 m x 30 m = 900 m2 Regardless of resolution, values of pixels intersecting the plot footprint were averaged.

  9. NA NA NA Conifer Species Basal Area Summarized per Study Area

  10. NA NA NA Conifer Species Tree Density Summarized per Study Area

  11. Basal Area (m2/ha) Tree Density (trees/ha) PIPO_BA PIPO_TD Pinus ponderosa PSME_BA PSME_TD Pseudotsuga menziesii LAOC_BA LAOC_TD Larix occidentalis PICO_BA PICO_TD Pinus contorta ABGR_BA ABGR_TD Abies grandis THPL_BA THPL_TD Thuja plicata TSHE_BA TSHE_TD Tsuga heterophylla PIEN_BA PIEN_TD Picea engelmannii ABLA_BA ABLA_TD Abies lasiocarpa Total_BA Total_TD Total (all species) warm/dry cool/wet Y variable summary: Conifer species selected (N=20) from tree species sampled (N=34) in field plots (N=165) Conifer species

  12. X variable summary: Remotely sensed variables selected (N=37) from candidate remotely sensed variables (N=54) with global coverage

  13. Tested statistical methods for finding nearest neighbors

  14. Observed vs. Imputed values, Y variables (N=20) Pearson correlation (r) Imputation Method

  15. Observed vs. Imputed values, Y variables (N=20) Root Mean Squared Difference (RMSD) Imputation Method

  16. k=6 nearest neighbors, inverse distance weighted k=1 nearest neighbor RMSD RMSD k=6 nearest neighbors, inverse distance weighted k=1 nearest neighbor r r

  17. Histograms of Observed and Imputed values Imputed Values = Closest Nearest Neighbor

  18. Histograms of Observed and Imputed values Imputed Values = Mean of 6 Nearest Neighbors, Inverse Distance-Weighted

  19. Histograms of Observed and Imputed values Imputed Values = Mean of 6 Nearest Neighbors

  20. Histograms of Observed and Imputed values Imputed Values = Closest Nearest Neighbor

  21. Conclusions • Choice of statistics to use for evaluating imputation results is important and remains challenging • Advantage of improved correlation and RMSD statistics by imputing from k>1nearest neighbors may be outweighed by disadvantage of an altered distribution of imputed values relative to observed values • Random Forest may provide more analytical flexibility, robustness, and predictive power than traditional imputation methods

  22. Acknowledgments • Funding: • Agenda 2020 Program • Rocky Mountain Research Station • Industry Partners: • Potlatch, Inc. • Bennett Lumber Products, Inc.

  23. Candidate X variables (N=54) calculated from pixel data within plot footprints

  24. Candidate X variables (N=54) calculated from pixel data within plot footprints Selected X variables (N=37)

More Related