Methodological considerations of terrestrial laser scanning for vegetation monitoring in the sagebrush steppe

  • Kyle E. Anderson
  • Nancy F. Glenn
  • Lucas P. Spaete
  • Douglas J. Shinneman
  • David S. Pilliod
  • Robert S. Arkle
  • Susan K. McIlroy
  • DeWayne R. Derryberry
Article

Abstract

Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) provides fast collection of high-definition structural information, making it a valuable field instrument to many monitoring applications. A weakness of TLS collections, especially in vegetation, is the occurrence of unsampled regions in point clouds where the sensor’s line-of-sight is blocked by intervening material. This problem, referred to as occlusion, may be mitigated by scanning target areas from several positions, increasing the chance that any given area will fall within the scanner’s line-of-sight from at least one position. Because TLS collections are often employed in remote regions where the scope of sampling is limited by logistical factors such as time and battery power, it is important to design field protocols which maximize efficiency and support increased quantity and quality of the data collected. This study informs researchers and practitioners seeking to optimize TLS sampling methods for vegetation monitoring in dryland ecosystems through three analyses. First, we quantify the 2D extent of occluded regions based on the range from single scan positions. Second, we measure the efficacy of additional scan positions on the reduction of 2D occluded regions (area) using progressive configurations of scan positions in 1 ha plots. Third, we test the reproducibility of 3D sampling yielded by a 5-scan/ha sampling methodology using redundant sets of scans. Analyses were performed using measurements at analysis scales of 5 to 50 cm across the 1-ha plots, and we considered plots in grass and shrub-dominated communities separately. In grass-dominated plots, a center-scan configuration and 5 cm pixel size sampled at least 90% of the area up to 18 m away from the scanner. In shrub-dominated plots, sampling at least 90% of the area was only achieved within a distance of 12 m. We found that 3 and 5 scans/ha are needed to sample at least ~ 70% of the total area (1 ha) in the grass and shrub-dominated plots, respectively, using 5 cm pixels to measure sampling presence-absence. The reproducibility of 3D sampling provided by a 5 position scan layout across 1-ha plots was 50% (shrub) and 70% (grass) using a 5-cm voxel size, whereas at the 50-cm voxel scale, reproducibility of sampling was nearly 100% for all plot types. Future studies applying TLS in similar dryland environments for vegetation monitoring may use our results as a guide to efficiently achieve sampling coverage and reproducibility in datasets.

Keywords

Point cloud Survey Lidar Dryland Vegetation monitoring Terrestrial laser scanning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a Joint Fire Science Program grant (Project ID: 11-1-2-30), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL, Physical Sciences Division) Award NA10OAR4680240, the National Science Foundation Idaho Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research Program, and the NSF under award number EPS-0814387. We thank Randy Lee at Idaho National Laboratory for the use of the TLS; Dr. Rupesh Shrestha, Dr. Aihua Li, Mr. Peter Olsoy, Mr. Kyle Gochnour, and Mr. Samuel Gould for providing lab and field assistance; and Dr. Steve DeLong for providing a constructive review. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government. This article has been peer reviewed and approved for publication consistent with US Geological Survey Fundamental Science Practices (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1367).

References

  1. Andersen, H. E., McGaughey, R. J., & Reutebuch, S. E. (2005). Estimating forest canopy fuel parameters using lidar data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 94(4), 441–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, K. E., Glenn, N. F., Spaete, L. P., Shinneman, D. J., Pilliod, D. S., Arkle, R. S., McIlroy, S. K., Derryberry, D. R. (2018). Estimating vegetation biomass and cover across large plots in shrub and grass dominated drylands using terrestrial lidar and machine learning. Ecological Indicators, 84:793-802Google Scholar
  3. Brooks, M. L., D’antonio, C. M., Richardson, D. M., Grace, J. B., Keeley, J. E., DiTomaso, J. M., Hobbs, R. J., Pellant, M., & Pyke, D. (2004). Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. Bioscience, 54(7), 677–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chasmer, L., Hopkinson, C., & Treitz, P. (2004). Assessing the three-dimensional frequency distribution of airborne and ground-based lidar data for red pine and mixed deciduous forest plots. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 36, 8.Google Scholar
  5. Cifuentes, R., Van Der Zande, D., Farifteh, J., Salas, C., & Coppin, P. (2014). Effects of voxel size and sampling setup on the estimation of forest canopy gap fraction from terrestrial laser scanning data. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 194, 230–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clawges, R., Vierling, L., Calhoon, M., & Toomey, M. (2007). Use of a ground-based scanning lidar for estimation of biophysical properties of western larch (Larix occidentalis). International Journal of Remote Sensing, 28(19), 4331–4344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper, S. D., Roy, D. P., Schaaf, C. B., & Paynter, I. (2017). Examination of the potential of terrestrial laser scanning and structure-from-motion photogrammetry for rapid nondestructive field measurement of grass biomass. Remote Sensing, 9(6), 531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coveney, S., & Fotheringham, A. S. (2011). Terrestrial laser scan error in the presence of dense ground vegetation. The Photogrammetric Record, 26(135), 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fan, L., Powrie, W., Smethurst, J., Atkinson, P. M., & Einstein, H. (2014). The effect of short ground vegetation on terrestrial laser scans at a local scale. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 95, 42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greaves, H. E., Vierling, L. A., Eitel, J. U. H., Boelman, N. T., Magney, T. S., Prager, C. M., & Griffin, K. L. (2015). Estimating aboveground biomass and leaf area of low-stature arctic shrubs with terrestrial lidar. Remote Sensing of Environment., 164, 26–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Henning, J. G., & Radtke, P. J. (2006). Ground-based laser imaging for assessing three-dimensional forest canopy structure. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 72(12), 1349–1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heritage, G., & Large, A. (2009). Laser scanning for the environmental sciences. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Loudermilk, E. L., Hiers, J. K., O’Brien, J. J., Mitchell, R. J., Singhania, A., Fernandez, J. C., Cropper, W. P., & Slatton, K. C. (2009). Ground-based lidar: a novel approach to quantify fine-scale fuelbed characteristics. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 18(6), 676–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Murgoitio, J., Shrestha, R., Glenn, N., & Spaete, L. (2014). Airborne lidar and terrestrial laser scanning derived vegetation obstruction factors for visibility models. Transactions in GIS, 18(1), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Olsoy, P. J., Glenn, N. F., Clark, P. E., & Derryberry, D. R. (2014). Aboveground total and green biomass of dryland shrub derived from terrestrial laser scanning. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 88, 166–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Olsoy, P. J., Mitchell, J. J., Levia, D. F., Clark, P. E., & Glenn, N. F. (2016). Estimation of big sagebrush leaf area index with terrestrial laser scanning. Ecological Indicators, 61, 815–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pilliod, D. S., & Arkle, R. S. (2013). Performance of quantitative vegetation sampling methods across gradients of cover in Great Basin plant communities. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 66, 634–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rowell, E., Loudermilk, E. L., Seielstad, C., & O’Brien, J. J. (2016). Using simulated 3D surface fuelbeds and terrestrial laser scan data to develop inputs to fire behavior models. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 42(5), 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Seidel, D., Fleck, S., & Leuschner, C. (2012). Analyzing forest canopies with ground-based laser scanning: a comparison with hemispherical photography. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 154, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shan, J., & Toth, C. K. (2008). Topographic laser ranging and scanning: principles and processing. CRC Press.Google Scholar
  21. Shinneman, D., Arkle, R., Pilliod, D., Glenn, N. F. (2015). Quantifying and predicting fuels and the effects of reduction treatments along successional and invasion gradients in sagebrush habitats. Retrieved from: https://www.firescience.gov/projects/11-1-2-30/project/11-1-2-30_final_report.pdf
  22. Strahler, A. H., Jupp, D. L., Woodcock, C. E., Schaaf, C. B., Yao, T., Zhao, F., Yang, X., Lovell, J., Culvenor, D., Newnham, G., Ni-Miester, W., & Boykin-Morris, W. (2008). Retrieval of forest structural parameters using a ground-based lidar instrument (Echidna®). Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 34(2), 426–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Trochta, J., Král, K., Janík, D., & Adam, D. (2013). Arrangement of terrestrial laser scanner positions for area-wide stem mapping of natural forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 43, 355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. USDI Bureau of Land Management. (2008). Snake river birds of prey National Conservation Area proposed resource management plan and final environmental impact statement, Boise, Idaho.Google Scholar
  25. Van der Zande, D., Jonckheere, I., Stuckens, J., Verstraeten, W. W., & Coppin, P. (2008). Sampling design of ground-based lidar measurements of forest canopy structure and its effect on shadowing. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 34(6), 526–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vierling, L. A., Xu, Y., Eitel, J. U., & Oldow, J. S. (2013). Shrub characterization using terrestrial laser scanning and implications for airborne lidar assessment. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 38(6), 709–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wallace, L., Lucieer, A., Watson, C., & Turner, D. (2012). Development of a UAV-lidar system with application to forest inventory. Remote Sensing, 4(6), 1519–1543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Western Region Climate Center. 2012. Swan falls power house, Idaho, Period of record general climate summary. Retrieved from: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?id8928.
  29. Wilkes, P., Lau, A., Disney, M., Calders, K., Burt, A., de Tanago, J. G., Bartholomeus, H., Brede, B., & Herold, M. (2017). Data acquisition considerations for terrestrial laser scanning of forest plots. Remote Sensing of Environment, 196, 140–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyle E. Anderson
    • 1
  • Nancy F. Glenn
    • 2
  • Lucas P. Spaete
    • 2
  • Douglas J. Shinneman
    • 3
  • David S. Pilliod
    • 3
  • Robert S. Arkle
    • 3
  • Susan K. McIlroy
    • 3
  • DeWayne R. Derryberry
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of GeosciencesIdaho State UniversityPocatelloUSA
  2. 2.Boise Center Aerospace Laboratory, Department of GeosciencesBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Geological SurveyForest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science CenterBoiseUSA
  4. 4.Department of MathIdaho State UniversityPocatelloUSA

Personalised recommendations