Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Improved methods for measuring forest landscape structure: LiDAR complements field-based habitat assessment

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conservation and monitoring of forest biodiversity requires reliable information about forest structure and composition at multiple spatial scales. However, detailed data about forest habitat characteristics across large areas are often incomplete due to difficulties associated with field sampling methods. To overcome this limitation we employed a nationally available light detection and ranging (LiDAR) remote sensing dataset to develop variables describing forest landscape structure across a large environmental gradient in Switzerland. Using a model species indicative of structurally rich mountain forests (hazel grouse Bonasa bonasia), we tested the potential of such variables to predict species occurrence and evaluated the additional benefit of LiDAR data when used in combination with traditional, sample plot-based field variables. We calibrated boosted regression trees (BRT) models for both variable sets separately and in combination, and compared the models’ accuracies. While both field-based and LiDAR models performed well, combining the two data sources improved the accuracy of the species’ habitat model. The variables retained from the two datasets held different types of information: field variables mostly quantified food resources and cover in the field and shrub layer, LiDAR variables characterized heterogeneity of vegetation structure which correlated with field variables describing the understory and ground vegetation. When combined with data on forest vegetation composition from field surveys, LiDAR provides valuable complementary information for encompassing species niches more comprehensively. Thus, LiDAR bridges the gap between precise, locally restricted field-data and coarse digital land cover information by reliably identifying habitat structure and quality across large areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aberg J, Swenson JE, Angelstam P (2003) The habitat requirements of hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia) in managed boreal forest and applicability of forest stand descriptions as a tool to identify suitable patches. For Ecol Manag 175(1–3):437–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artuso R, Boyet S, Streilein A (2003) Practical methods for the verification of countrywide terrain and surface models. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens 34:1419

    Google Scholar 

  • Attiwill PM (1994) The disturbance of forest ecosystems: the ecological basis for conservative management. For Ecol Manag 63(2–3):247–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann H-H, Klaus S, Müller F, Scherzinger W, Swenson JE, Wiesner J (1996) Die Haselhühner—4. überarbeitete Auflage. Die neue Brehm-Bücherei Bd.77. Westarp Wissenschaften, Magdeburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury RB, Hill RA, Mason DC, Hinsley SA, Wilson JD, Balzter H, Anderson GQA, Whittingham MJ, Davenport IJ, Bellamy PE (2005) Modelling relationships between birds and vegetation structure using airborne LiDAR data: a review with case studies from agricultural and woodland environments. Ibis 147(3):443–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braunisch V, Suchant R (2010) Predicting species distributions based on incomplete survey data: the trade-off between precision and scale. Ecography 33(5):826–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clawges RM, Vierling KT, Vierling LA, Rowell E (2008) The use of airborne lidar to assess avian species diversity, density, and occurrence in a pine/aspen forest. Remote Sens Environ 112(5):2064–2073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Leathwick JR, Hastie T (2008) A working guide to boosted regression trees. J Anim Ecol 77(4):802–813

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24(1):38–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flaspohler DJ, Giardina CP, Asner GP, Hart P, Price J, Lyons CKA, Castaneda X (2010) Long-term effects of fragmentation and fragment properties on bird species richness in Hawaiian forests. Biol Conserv 143(2):280–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin JF, Spies TA, Van Pelt R, Carey AB, Thornburgh DA, Berg DR, Lindenmayer DB, Harmon ME, Keeton WS, Shaw DC, Bible K, Chen JQ (2002) Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. For Ecol Manag 155(1–3):399–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman JH (2002) Stochastic gradient boosting. Comput Stat Data Anal 38(4):367–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrig-Fasel J, Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2007) Tree line shifts in the Swiss Alps: climate change or land abandonment? J Veg Sci 18(4):571–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetz SJ, Steinberg D, Dubayah RO, Blair B (2007) Laser remote sensing of canopy habitat heterogeneity as a predictor of bird species richness in an eastern temperate forest, USA. Remote Sens Environ 108(3):254–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetz SJ, Steinberg D, Betts MG, Holmes RT, Doran PJ, Dubayah R, Hofton M (2010) Lidar remote sensing variables predict breeding habitat of a Neotropical migrant bird. Ecology 91(6):1569–1576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gonseth Y, Wohlgemuth T, Sansonnens B, Buttler A (2001) Die biogeographischen Regionen der Schweiz. Erläuterungen und Einteilungsstandard. Umwelt Materialien Nr. 137 Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft, Bern

  • Goodwin NR, Coops NC, Bater CW, Gergel SE (2007) Assessment of sub-canopy structure in a complex coniferous forest. In: Proceedings of the ISPR Workshop “Laser Scanning 2007 and SilviLaser 2007”, Espoo, September 12–14, 2007, Finland, vol XXXVI ISSN:1682–1777, P3/W52:169–172

  • Graf RF, Bollmann K, Sachot S, Suter W, Bugmann H (2006) On the generality of habitat distribution models: a case study of capercaillie in three Swiss regions. Ecography 29(3):319–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graf RF, Mathys L, Bollmann K (2009) Habitat assessment for forest dwelling species using LiDAR remote sensing: Capercaillie in the Alps. For Ecol Manag 257(1):160–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman JH (2001) The elements of statistical learning: sata mining, inference, and prediction. Springer series in statisticsSpringer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hijmans RJ, Phillips SJ, Leathwick JR, Elith J (2011) Species distribution modeling (dismo). Package version 0.7–8. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/dismo/index.html. Accessed 20 April 2012

  • Hill RA, Hinsley SA, Gaveau DLA, Bellamy PE (2004) Predicting habitat quality for Great Tits (Parus major) with airborne laser scanning data. Int J Remote Sens 25(22):4851–4855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61(1):65–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones J (2001) Habitat selection studies in avian ecology: a critical review. Auk 118(2):557–562

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller M (2005) Schweizerisches Landesforstinventar. Anleitung für die Feldaufnahmen der Erhebung 2004–2007. Eidg. Forschungsanstalt WSL, Birmensdorf

    Google Scholar 

  • Klaus S, Martens J, Andreev AV, Sun Y-H (2003) Bonasa bonasia (Linnaeus, 1758). Atlas Verbr Palaearkt Vögel 20:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsson T-B (2001) Biodiversity evaluation tools for European forests. Ecol Bull 50:000

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefsky MA, Cohen WB, Parker GG, Harding DJ (2002) Lidar remote sensing for ecosystem studies. Bioscience 52(1):19–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesak AA, Radeloff VC, Hawbaker TJ, Pidgeon AM, Gobakken T, Contrucci K (2011) Modeling forest songbird species richness using LiDAR-derived measures of forest structure. Remote Sens Environ 115(11):2823–2835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Margules CR, Botkin DB (2000) Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conserv Biol 14(4):941–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Gideon BL, Droege S, Royle JA, Langtimm CA (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83(8):2248–2255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathys L, Zimmermann NE, Zbinden N, Suter W (2006) Identifying habitat suitability for hazel grouse Bonasa bonasia at the landscape scale. Wildl Biol 12(4):357–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/-fragstats.html. Accessed 15 Aug 2012

  • Morsdorf F, Marell A, Koetz B, Cassagne N, Pimont F, Rigolot E, Allgöwer B (2010) Discrimination of vegetation strata in a multi-layered Mediterranean forest ecosystem using height and intensity information derived from airborne laser scanning. Remote Sens Environ 114(7):1403–1415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller J, Brandl R (2009) Assessing biodiversity by remote sensing in mountainous terrain: the potential of LiDAR to predict forest beetle assemblages. J Appl Ecol 46(4):897–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller D, Schroder B, Müller J (2009a) Modelling habitat selection of the cryptic Hazel Grouse Bonasa bonasia in a montane forest. J Ornithol 150(4):717–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller J, Moning C, Bässler C, Heurich M, Brandl R (2009b) Using airborne laser scanning to model potential abundance and assemblages of forest passerines. Basic Appl Ecol 10(7):671–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller J, Stadler J, Brandl R (2010) Composition versus physiognomy of vegetation as predictors of bird assemblages: the role of lidar. Remote Sens Environ 114(3):490–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity—a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4(4):355–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Package version 2.13.2. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

  • Schäublin S, Bollmann K (2011) Winter habitat selection and conservation of Hazel Grouse (Bonasa bonasia) in mountain forests. J Ornithol 152(1):179–192. doi:10.1007/s10336-010-0563-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schönenberger W (2001) Trends in mountain forest management in Switzerland. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen 152:152–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schönenberger W (2002) Windthrow research after the 1990 storm Vivian in Switzerland: objectives, study sites, and projects. For Snow Landsc Res 77(1–2):9–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Seavy NE, Viers JH, Wood JK (2009) Riparian bird response to vegetation structure: a multiscale analysis using LiDAR measurements of canopy height. Ecol Appl 19(7):1848–1857

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson WD, Allen HD, Coomes DA (2012) Use of an airborne lidar system to model plant species composition and diversity of Mediterranean oak forests. Conserv Biol 26(5):840–850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stöcklin J, Bosshard A, Klaus G, Rudmann-Maurer K, Fischer M (2007) Landnutzung und biologische Vielfalt in den Alpen - Thematische Synthese zum Forschungsschwerpunkt 2 “Land- und Forstwirtschaft im alpinen Lebensraum” des Nationalen Forschungungsprogramms NFP 48 “Landschaften und Lebensräume der Alpen” des Schweizerischen Nationalfonds SNF. vdf Hochschulverlag AG, Zürich

  • Swatantran A, Dubayah R, Goetz SJ, Hofton M, Betts MG, Sun M, Simard M, Holmes R (2012) Mapping migratory bird prevalence using remote sensing data fusion. PLoS One 7(1):e28922

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Swenson JE (1991) Social organization of hazel grouse and ecological factors influencing it. Dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

  • Swisstopo (2012) VECTOR25. http://www.swisstopo.admin.ch/internet/swisstopo/-de/home/products/landscape/vector25.html. Accessed 13 Jan 2012

  • Turner W, Spector S, Gardiner N, Fladeland M, Sterling E, Steininger M (2003) Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 18(6):306–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vierling KT, Vierling LA, Gould WA, Martinuzzi S, Clawges RM (2008) Lidar: shedding new light on habitat characterization and modeling. Front Ecol Environ 6(2):90–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vierling KT, Bässler C, Brandl R, Vierling LA, Weiss I, Müller J (2011) Spinning a laser web: predicting spider distributions using LiDAR. Ecol Appl 21(2):577–588

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waser LT, Ginzler C, Kuechler M, Baltsavias E, Hurni L (2011) Semi-automatic classification of tree species in different forest ecosystems by spectral and geometric variables derived from airborne digital sensor (ADS40) and RC30 data. Remote Sens Environ 115(1):76–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilsey CB, Lawler JJ, Cimprich DA (2012) Performance of habitat suitability models for the endangered black-capped vireo built with remotely-sensed data. Remote Sens Environ 119:35–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger F, Braunisch V, Baltensweiler A, Bollmann K (2013) Remotely sensed forest structural complexity predicts multi species occurrence at the landscape scale. For Ecol Manag 307:303–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was part of a research project funded by the research programme ‘Forest and climate change’ of the Swiss Federal Inst. for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL and the Federal Office for the Environment FOEN. We are grateful to the Swiss Ornithological Institute for providing the species data. Special thanks to all the people involved in the field work, namely Lisa Bitterlin, Lucretia Deplazes, Nino Maag, Lea Hofstetter, Maria Rusche, Karin Feller and Joy Coppes.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903, Birmensdorf, Switzerland

    Florian Zellweger & Kurt Bollmann

  2. Remote Sensing Laboratories, Department of Geography, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    Felix Morsdorf

  3. Department of Geography, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    Ross S. Purves

  4. Conservation Biology, Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Bern, Baltzerstrasse 6, 3012, Bern, Switzerland

    Veronika Braunisch

  5. Forest Research Institute of Baden-Württemberg, Wonnhaldestrasse 4, 79100, Freiburg, Germany

    Veronika Braunisch

Authors
  1. Florian Zellweger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Felix Morsdorf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ross S. Purves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Veronika Braunisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kurt Bollmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian Zellweger.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Online Resource 1

Description and definition of all field variables, including the sampling reference within the sampling plot. Supplementary Fig. 1 (DOC 57 kb)

Online Resource 2

Detailed description and flow chart of the LiDAR data processing and variable extraction. Supplementary Fig. 2 (DOC 69 kb)

Online Resource 3

Description and definition of all LiDAR variables. Supplementary Fig. 3 (DOC 42 kb)

Online Resource 4

Statistical overview of field and LiDAR variables. Supplementary Fig. 4 (DOC 65 kb)

Online Resource 5

Moran’s I correlogram on residuals of the combined BRT model for the analysis of potential spatial autocorrelation in the data. Supplementary Fig. 5 (DOC 38 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zellweger, F., Morsdorf, F., Purves, R.S. et al. Improved methods for measuring forest landscape structure: LiDAR complements field-based habitat assessment. Biodivers Conserv 23, 289–307 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0600-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0600-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation