Abstract
The success of current and future forest management, particularly when dealing with triggered changes stemming from extreme climate change–induced events, will require prompt, timely, and reliable information obtained at local scales. Remote sensing platforms and sensors have been evolving, emerging, and converging with enabling technologies that can potentially have an enormous impact in providing reliable decision support and making forest operations more coherent with climate change mitigation and adaptation objectives.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
Forest operations are fundamental to the management needs specifically designed to respond to a trigger. These triggers are a planned sequence of events along the developmental stages of the stand that are set by the forest management plan during tactical or operational planning. Forest operations can also be a response to an unplanned change (unplanned trigger) that could alter the decision process and operation deployment, generating a feedback loop to the execution of the plan (Fig. 27.1).
Forest operations include timber harvests, fiber recovery, site preparation for suitable establishment (natural regeneration, seeding, or planting), thinning, pruning, timber stand improvement, competitive vegetation control, sanitization, and salvage (Fig. 27.2). They are designed to meet management needs (Fig. 27.1) on the basis of the targeted ecological response, technical applicability, and economic feasibility within compliance standards (Rummer, 2002). For example, harvesting within ecosystem-based management often prescribes the retention of legacy trees and the use of suitable techniques to avoid any damage to these trees. Whereas operations are a response to a planned trigger, they can also cause significant expected changes to the environment within a very short time; these changes also require tracking. For example, harvesting a matured stand will reset (change) the developmental process to its early-successional stages.
The effective implementation of sustainable forest management depends largely on carrying out sustainable forest operations (Marchi et al., 2018), which can prove to be more challenging in the context of climate change. The intensity and frequency of extreme climate events and severe insect outbreaks are predicted consequences of climate change and will alter the natural dynamics of the forests and drastically alter the local environment (Spittlehouse, 2005). For instance, operational deployment could be impeded by sudden flooding, early thawing, catastrophic tree damage, etc. The feedback loop to tactical planning in such situations happens rapidly and more frequently (Fig. 27.1).
The success and efficient deployment and the completion of any response or action depend on a prompt, timely, and reliable information feed at the planning, deployment, and operational stages. The status of vegetation (e.g., tree species or stem quality) and terrain (e.g., slope or ground-bearing capacity) features are critical information needs (Table 27.1). Their level of detail, intensity, and periodicity is defined by the complexity of the type of operation or the environmental conditions in which the operation must be completed along the stand developmental stages (Table 27.1). For example, harvesting a sustainably managed mixedwood stand growing mainly on complex terrain conditions requires safe access to the site and detailed information on the targeted species, e.g., stem quality. It is critical to properly identify the seed trees and create microsites that favor natural regeneration during operations. Hence, information needs tend to relate to planning, i.e., a priori, and during the actual operation, i.e., real time. The recentness of the acquired data is also important. Moreover, detail intensity increases from a homogeneous plantation to a heterogeneous natural stand. The level of detail for planning a harvest operation may be at the tree to stand level for vegetation, whereas accessibility (surface, slope, skid trails, landings, and wood catchment zones) is generally required at the block level (Table 27.2). However, during the harvest operation itself, the required details are instantaneous, repetitive, and intense within the operator’s line of sight.
Traditionally, data used for planning purposes has been based mainly on a priori ground surveys (e.g., walk-throughs, cruising—a method to determine value of a specific area—or inventory of plot installations) or coarse interpreted images. Treatment execution is completed using visual assessments and compliance reporting with independent surveys. Recent innovations in remote sensing technology for rapidly gathering, processing, and accessing information have significantly modernized how forest operations are planned and conducted. This chapter documents current remote sensing technologies suitable for understanding, monitoring, and mapping forest conditions at local scales to plan, perform, and report forest operations successfully.
2 Remote Sensing Platforms for Operational Forestry
Remote sensing is a platform-sensor combination (PSC) used to gather information about an object without being in physical contact with the object. PSC has the advantage of providing quick, synoptic, and repeated information over large and multiple spaces. The level of detail (coverage, resolution, timing, and frequency) varies with combinations of these various parameters (Table 26.2). Sensors are either passive (e.g., imaging/reflectance and thermal/radiation) or active (e.g., LiDAR or laser scanners and RaDAR or microwave scanners). The periodicity of the satellite data is fixed on the basis of constellations (daily to a few days; see Table 26.2), whereas all other acquisitions are programmed as per need (Tables 27.3 and 27.4).
Perception sensors help describe surface objects or perceive the environment. Positional or pose sensors (e.g., Global Navigation Satellite System–Global Positioning System, GNSS-GPS; Realtime Kinematics, RTK; Inertial Navigation System, INS; Inertial Measurement Unit, IMU; gyros and wheel encoders) determine the location and pose of the platform. A sensor platform refers to its carrier; these include mobile platforms, such as satellites, airborne platforms (aircraft and drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles or UAV), manned or unmanned ground vehicles, and human or stationary platforms, such as towers and tripods. Sensors are also sometimes distinguished by the platform they carry; for example, Liang et al. (2015) classified laser scanners as being either airborne (ALS), terrestrial (TLS), mobile (MLS), or personal (PLS). Platforms above the forest canopy can provide a synoptic view over large contiguous areas to provide a top-to-bottom description. In contrast, platforms in proximity, below the canopy, or closer to the ground provide vertical stem information and a detailed terrain description that is not feasible or possible from above-canopy platform systems (Fig. 27.3). For example, Kankare et al. (2014) demonstrated that TLS produces preharvest tree- and stand-level bucking details at a greater degree of accuracy than conventional means. Such data can help estimate the stumpage value of a stand or more suitable wood assortments.
Optical sensors capture the reflectance from materials within, e.g., standard digital RGB camera, and beyond the visible spectrum, e.g., infrared, whereas thermal sensors capture radiation from materials. Multispectral sensors (MSS) capture reflectance in limited or broad spectral regions (bands), and hyperspectral sensors have narrower but multiple bands. The spatial resolution of the image represents the ground sampling distance (GSD), which varies on the basis of the focal length of the sensor, the altitude at which the sensor is placed, and the speed with which the platform moves (Table 26.2). For instance, depending on the sensor platform, GSD may vary from a subcentimeter (e.g., drone), to submeter (e.g., WorldView series) to kilometer (e.g., AVHRR) scale. GSD is important in determining the spatial resolvability (mappability) of the feature on the image. Typically, assuming a reasonable contrast of the target feature from its background, more than 3 cm GSD is recommended for manually discerning trees as small as 0.4 m in height with a 35 cm crown diameter or form on an image (Pitt et al., 1997).
LiDAR (light detection and ranging) and RaDAR (radio detection and ranging) are active ranging sensors. RaDAR transmits microwave radio signals, whereas LiDAR transmits infrared energy. Both emit pulses that can penetrate through smoke, cloud, and small openings in tree canopies to reach the forest floor as well as measure the reflected backscatter. The range is converted to distance to provide precise locations (x, y, z) of the point of interaction with an object in space, and these sensors are best suited to describing the structure of an object, e.g., crown shape or tree height. Available radar systems provide a spatial resolution larger than 1 m and are better suited for large-scale mapping relevant to strategic or tactical forest management.
In terms of the capabilities of data recording, LiDAR systems can be fullwave (complete distribution of intercepted and returned laser pulse along the pathway) or discrete return (few observations are recorded from a laser pulse that is intercepted and reflected from targets). As they record the entire pathway along with the additional attributes of amplitude and intensity, fullwave systems are better suited for detailed above- and below-canopy characterization. Fullwave recording requires large-scale data management and algorithms, and this approach still remains at the experimental stage; however, discrete LiDAR is currently in operational use (Crespo-Peremarch et al., 2020). LiDAR systems are also differentiated by laser footprint size. A small footprint (less than one meter) on the ground provides a good link between the LiDAR beam and the structural vegetation attributes that are subtle among or within individual trees. By segregating the returns, e.g., vegetation versus ground, the points can be interpolated to describe continuous object (digital surface model, DSM) and terrain (digital terrain model, DTM) surfaces. Their arithmetic differences represent the aboveground surfaces, e.g., canopy height model (CHM). Point clouds, as well as surface models, are used to extract features. Point density and the power of the laser signal to penetrate through the canopy define feature resolvability and the estimated dimensions. Because imaging sensors receive the resulting light reaction from a particular surface, they tend to be best suited for understanding floristic compositional/structural characteristics related to the object, e.g., species, vigor, canopy cover, and density. Imagery is a 2D raster, and LiDAR is 3D point data or vertical profile; however, when images are gathered either as a stereo or overlapping sequence, they can provide photogrammetric 3D data useful for describing the structure of objects, such as canopy structure. Table 26.2 highlights the estimable direct/indirect features relevant to forestry on commonly available platforms.
The selection of PSC for a forest operation depends on the spatial extent and patterns of the area of interest, the timing, the recentness of the acquired information, and the repetitiveness between triggers for the required monitoring/reporting, specifically for vegetation status. Preharvest surveys should be within a year of the operation, whereas site preparation for competition control is conducted within a month, and regeneration surveys are two to five years after stand initiation (Table 26.1). The availability of certain RS platforms, such as satellite or aerial platforms, may be limited. Similarly, the phenology of target vegetation is an important consideration, as coniferous crops remain distinctly visible during the early spring or late fall, whereas deciduous vegetation is transparent during these periods.
Measurements with static terrestrial platforms provide a single or a small number of viewpoints and hence are limited to the validation or calibration of models built on higher platforms (Liang et al., 2018). On the other hand, mobile systems have the potential to provide near-real-time data and detailed below-canopy data relevant for operational decisions (Holmgren et al., 2019).
2.1 Positioning and Tracking Systems
Precise positioning in space and navigation is essential for safe and effective target action through localization (e.g., fire, salvage, or herbicide sprays) or tracking activity data (e.g., machine movements or harvest operations) for assessing efficiency, quality, and productivity (Keefe et al., 2019). The most commonly used positioning tools are global positioning systems (GPS) operating via a constellation of satellites, 24 as in GNSS. A GPS receiver can provide latitude, longitude, elevation, and the vector heading to monitor one’s location on topographic/thematic maps or imagery (Picchio et al., 2019). This information is generally integrated with a geographic information system (GIS) and can be visualized by the operator. Differential GPS or RTK systems can improve locational accuracy. Given the poor precision in forested environments because of canopies blocking satellite signals, additional sensors like INS can be used to estimate relative position and orientation of a mobile vehicle, e.g., an operating forestry machine. The heart of INS is the IMU—a combination of gyroscopes, accelerometers, and magnetic sensors used for determining translational and rotational velocity to provide a navigational solution. More recently, simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM), a technique popular with autonomous systems, has also been tested for use in forestry (Chandail & Vepakomma, 2020; Tang et al., 2015). SLAM involves creating a map for an unknown environment while simultaneously determining the agent’s location using a laser or RGB-D camera to estimate depth in combination with other location sensors, such as GPS and IMU.
3 Remote Sensing–Based Feature Extraction for Forest Operations
In the context of a forest operation deployment sequence, we can essentially discuss remote sensing technologies as those (1) providing information on the forest environment for operational planning, monitoring, or assessing the effectiveness of an operation and/or reporting compliance; (2) gathering environmental information during the operations; and (3) relating to the operations themselves. Essentially, planning is a priori information that has a recentness from the day to a few months previous and helps determine the selection and use of machine systems. Information used for compliance or when monitoring effectiveness following a treatment must also be recent, whereas data needs are real time to near–real time for the deployment of actual operations. Above-canopy platforms are more suitable for planning and monitoring, especially in contiguous spaces, whereas close-range, terrestrial, and mobile platforms are most suitable for real-time operations. The following subsections are organized to understand how remote sensing, especially using platforms closer to the canopies, can be used for information feed, particularly in relation to vegetation and the underlying terrain, as highlighted in Table 27.1, along the sequence of a forest operation deployment. We provide, where possible, examples of different applications.
3.1 Vegetation Features
During the stand development stages, many prescriptions call for vegetation changes to the established stands, e.g., harvesting of crop trees, regeneration cuttings in shelterwood or group selection systems, thinning, sanitation removals of diseased or infested trees, or the spraying of herbicides on competing shrubs that affect crop tree growth. These prescriptions require accurate data at the subtree, tree, or, at the least, microstand level for efficient and effective management. This relevant data includes assessing tree height, form, quality, vigor, and species, as well as the tree’s surrounding environment, e.g., stocking, growing space, species mix, and competition.
3.1.1 Pretreatment Assessment
Given its ability to reconstruct 3D forest structures and reliably estimate several biophysical parameters describing within- and below-canopy structure and function, LiDAR has become an essential component of operational forest inventories in numerous countries (Maltamo et al., 2021; Næsset, 2007; White et al., 2016). Two main approaches for LiDAR have been developed: an area-based and an individual-tree approach. The former is aimed at large-scale assessments that have a coarse point density effective for producing a stand portrait. As the name suggests, the individual-tree approach relies on identifying and delineating trees, including species identification, direct estimation of height and crown parameters, modeled diameter at breast height, basal area, and volume. The area-based approach (ABA) is a model-based estimate in which canopy descriptors or metrics are predicted on the basis of regression or discriminant analysis using accurate in situ plot data and height distribution (quantiles, percentiles, etc.) of LiDAR beam reflection (White et al., 2013). This method has demonstrated an accuracy of 4–8% for stem height, 6–12% for mean stem diameter, 9–12% for basal area, 17–22% for stem density, and 11–14% for volume estimates in boreal forest studies attempting to capture within-stand variability (Holmgren, 2004; Maltamo et al., 2010; Næsset, 2007; Sibona et al., 2017; White et al., 2013). In the absence of tree-level information, this stand or microstand level of characterization has been applied in eastern Canada to aid silvicultural prescriptions, such as commercial thinning or salvaging (Lussier & Meek, 2014; Meek & Lussier, 2008). Integrating vigor information with LiDAR canopy stratification helped machine operators improve productivity by 4% (Fig. 27.4; Gaudreau & Lirette, 2020). Area-based estimates using digital aerial photogrammetry collected across a range of boreal forest types is comparable with that obtained via aerial LiDAR (Goodbody et al., 2019). McRoberts et al. (2018) and Fekety et al. (2015) note, however, some challenges of using ABA models in relation to their shelf life and temporal transferability.
The extended history of aerial and satellite platforms carrying optical sensors, more recently combined with LiDAR, has produced a large body of work demonstrating the successful implementation of remote sensing to studies of canopy vegetation (Cerrejón et al., 2021). Multiple approaches exist for quantifying and estimating the structural and compositional parameters of interest and spatially mapping these parameters at various spatial scales. Generally, very-high-resolution imagery in 2D, stereoscopic, or overlapping imagery in 3D is visually interpreted based on the calibration of a series of field plots combined with guidelines related to the vegetation in terms of foliage color, texture, crown shape, and branching structure (Corbane et al., 2015). Semi- or fully automated workflows can be summarized as segmenting the image into homogeneous objects (a tree, a collection of trees, or a stand) and then (1) estimating directly the structural or compositional parameters of interest or (2) estimating these parameters indirectly through proxy variables. Segmentation, in particular individual tree crowns (ITC), is 2D raster-based (either multispectral images, grayscale images, or CHM) and 3D point clouds (photogrammetric or LiDAR).
Separating vegetation from its background and assuming the brightest pixel to the highest point of the foliage on high-resolution 2D images (similar to raster-based CHM models), rule-based semi- or fully automated approaches can then extract tree crowns. Accuracy varies with GSD and by partitioning images into homogeneous forest stands; for instance, an accuracy of 60% (70 cm resolution) to 89% (31 cm) has been estimated for open coniferous to more complex mixedwood boreal forests, respectively (Katoh & Gougeon, 2012; Leckie et al., 2005). The number of trees per species depends on ITC accuracy, which improves when understory species are eliminated. Two-dimensional models may help with segmentation when estimating species density, although the structural assessment of canopies also requires determining canopy height.
Digital aerial photos (DAPs) combined with stereoscopic (visual) or digital photogrammetry can reconstruct a 3D forest canopy. Image matching and, more recently, computer-vision techniques such as SIFT (scale-invariant feature transform) combined with structure from motion (SfM) are very commonly used to estimate the 3D forest canopy from sequences of overlapping 2D images, e.g., images captured from a drone. If an accurate DTM is derivable, which can be difficult in complex, mature stands, DAPs can estimate the structural variables of the uppermost canopy, e.g., height, basal area, volume, quite accurately, comparable with the accuracy obtained using aerial LiDAR (Baltsavias, 1999; Goodbody et al., 2019). When DTM from an image is not derivable, a simple solution is to have a coregistered LiDAR or SRTM DTM for DAP point normalization or canopy surface generation (St-Onge et al., 2015). Three-dimensional forest canopy models can be useful for silvicultural prescriptions when data acquisition is optimally timed before an operation is planned. It is also possible that rapid and near-real-time inventory measurements, e.g., canopy cover, based on ocular estimates are made with an improved precision using nadir—the sensor looking vertically downward—images from a drone. UAV-SfM estimates of several inventory variables are comparable to those of LiDAR in terms of root mean square error for dominant height (3.5%), Lorey’s height (13.3–14.4%), stem density (38.6%), basal area (15.4–23.9%), and timber volume (14.9–26.1%) (Puliti et al., 2015; Tuominen et al., 2015).
Although raster-based ITC approaches can segment most of the top canopy, potential segmentation within the multilayered vertical structure of the canopy to capture subcanopy elements—especially using LiDAR echoes from above-canopy platforms—is possible through point-based clustering. Hamraz et al. (2016) obtained >94% detection rate for dominant and codominant trees in complex stands. Because of the ultra-high-density data in current LiDAR systems, there is also a greater possibility of extending techniques to direct and nondestructive estimates of a suite of stem-quality determinants with a high level of accuracy, including estimates of crown base, clear stem, stem taper, stem straightness, and branchiness (Vepakomma & Cormier, 2017, 2019). This offers great potential in the more refined selection of trees on the basis of target mill product specifications and automated bucking, where each tree can be analyzed at the stump to optimize its market value (Fig. 27.5).
Distinct tree architecture and branching patterns can be observed from high density LiDAR (Fig. 27.5). A 77.8% accuracy has been achieved in distinguishing predominantly boreal tree species by correlating estimated LiDAR features to vertical and horizontal foliage patterns (Li & Hu, 2012). Use of the textural or spectral intensity of multiwavelength LiDAR improved the accuracy (Budei et al., 2018). However, given the easy availability of optical images, spectral-based species discrimination is the most suitable, rapid, and pragmatic means of mapping large forest spaces.
Accuracy in tree species classification has improved through a priori crown extraction (Dalponte et al., 2014), although Heinzel and Koch (2011) found pixel-based classification improved the undersegmentation of crowns. While very-high spatial and super-spectral-resolution images such as the Worldview series are promising, the automated discrimination of more than ten tree species has been achieved with 82% accuracy using high-spatial-resolution MSS data (Immitzer et al., 2019). Accuracy improved greatly when models were adapted to narrowband hyperspectral sensors (Fassnacht et al., 2014; Modzelewska et al., 2020). Hyperspectral data, nevertheless, is data- and process-intensive and is restricted to being the most successful when collected in bright light conditions. Some researchers have found that sensor-fusion approaches, such as MSS or hyperspectral data with LiDAR, have improved species discriminability in boreal regions (Dalponte et al., 2014; Trier et al., 2018). These models identified as many as 19 species at 87% accuracy. Because temporal variability is a critical factor for species discrimination and there is an existing insufficiency of training samples, drone-based solutions can serve to map at local scales and develop a reference database (Fassnacht et al., 2014; Natesan et al., 2020). After iteratively building tree libraries from drone-based simple RGB images acquired in variable light-season-year conditions, Natesan et al. (2020) discriminated five conifer species at 73–91% accuracy (Fig. 27.6) and adaptively improved this library to identify six more deciduous taxa at over 79% accuracy in boreal regions.
An indicator of forest health is a forest’s resistance and resilience to disturbances and its ability to adapt to climate change over the long term. Altered structure, functioning, or taxonomy because of the physiological stress of resource limitation, disease, or disturbances occur at all spatial (vertical and horizontal) and temporal scales; nevertheless, capturing early signs can help minimize disturbance-related damage. Using the concepts of spectral traits and their variability (direct or proxy variables of forest health), Lausch et al. (2013) conducted an extensive review of the best PSC and available techniques for quantifying or qualifying short- to long-term monitoring of vigor. Close-range sensing improves precision or calibrates spectral responses of stress or disturbance in airborne remote sensing (Fassnacht et al., 2014). Slight declines in chlorophyll or moisture levels (identifiable through hyperspectral sensing) have helped provide early warnings of bark beetle (Fassnacht et al., 2014; Safonova et al., 2019) and herbivorous insect (Cardil et al., 2017; Meng et al., 2018; Vepakomma et al., 2021) infestations. There has been some success in identifying isolated impacted trees to group mortality (Fassnacht et al., 2014; Sylvain et al., 2019) and distinguishing the effects of multiple disturbances, e.g., pine blister rust and mountain pine beetle (Coops et al., 2003; Hatala et al., 2010).
3.1.2 During Treatment
Planning and executing forest operations is as much about following best practices as it is avoiding changing or damaging cultural remnants and special biotopes or transgressing property borders. LiDAR has been used to detect cultural heritage sites (Risbøl et al., 2014) and map habitat characteristics with the possibility of earmarking areas that must be avoided (Evju & Sverdrup-Thygeson, 2016). Proximal scanning also shows a strong potential in providing decision support during operations. For example, the rapid detection and estimates of stand density, tree position, and stem diameter (Holmgren et al., 2019) has helped with thinning tree selection and allowed data to be collected on individual tree selection by harvester operators through modeling of which tree the operator might select a priori (Brunner & Gizachew, 2014) or during operations (Gaudreau & Lirette, 2020).
3.1.3 Post-operation Monitoring
In most jurisdictions, standard practice involves compliance of contractual or regulatory frameworks and a post-operation follow-up; for example, these can entail assessment of post-harvest renewal or establishment monitoring to ensure sustainable production. The desired management objectives are typically to control stocking, species composition, survival, and growth. The distinct conical shape of conifer seedlings allows their easy detection for both planted trees and natural irregularly spaced stems. Vepakomma et al. (2015) distinguished conifer seedlings at least 0.3 m in height and estimated their size with a low average bias of 0.02 m through simple RGB images obtained from a drone. The data formed a basis for evaluating stocking, growing space, and regeneration gaps. By distinguishing competitive species, the models were further extended to qualify free-growing trees and assess regeneration compliance (Fig. 27.7). Pouliot et al. (2002) found that although the automated detection of six-year-old planted conifers was significantly high (at 91%), crown size extraction was sensitive to pixel resolution. In their case, they noted an 18% error compared with field assessments.
3.2 Terrain Features
The cost, efficiency, and potential environmental impact of forest operations all depend greatly on terrain features, e.g., surface roughness, slope, obstacles, and hydrographic data (flow channels, slope, drainage, and wet areas). These features can be described at macro-, meso-, and microlevels. DTM at corresponding resolutions are derivable using RaDAR interferometry, e.g., inSAR from satellite, available SRTM (Shuttle RaDAR Topographic Mission) data, LiDAR, or images using photogrammetric techniques where the ground is visible (Talbot & Rahif, 2017). Given the current technologies, LiDAR has proven to be the best available and most accurate tool for terrain assessments of mature stands. However, ALS with coarse data density can still provide a resolution greater than what planning methods can actually use (Talbot & Rahif, 2017).
Knowledge of terrain surface roughness and the number of potential hazards, especially under a dense canopy or on steep slopes, is critical for operational safety. Full-waveform LiDAR has a higher chance of returns from dense terrain and enables the successful detection of hazards, such as protruding rocks over 2 m wide (Chhatkuli et al., 2012). Slope and hydrographic features are directly derivable from a DTM, and model-based indices are used to identify wet areas and surface roughness (Ågren et al., 2014; Murphy et al., 2008). Identifying surface features that could be potential hazards helps ensure the safe driving of machinery at a harvest site (Fig. 27.8; Li and Vepakomma, 2020). Wet-area maps, which are characterized by indices such as cartographic depth-to-water (DTW) or the topographic wetness index (TWI) help to assess soil, vegetation, and drainage type and are used by the machine operators during forest operations to avoid or mitigate site damage (Ring et al., 2020). Such maps constitute a considerable improvement in recent forest management data and the planning of forest operations (Talbot & Astrup, 2021).
3.2.1 Pretreatment Assessment
Harvesting planning. Forest operations alter the environment, which, most often, is desired and intended. Undesirable impacts occur in particular when moving material or equipment into the forest (Rummer, 2002). In practice, machine operators in Europe and the Americas use tree cover and ground information as a canvas to plan harvesting or the moving of equipment. Providing an automated feature extraction from remote sensing as part of harvest planning can significantly minimize detrimental factors. These features can then be fed into algorithms to identify potential landings adjacent to roads or aid route optimization (Flisberg et al., 2021). In ground-based harvesting, the skid trail layout should be adapted to both the topography and the soil bearing capacity. Rönnqvist et al. (2020) combined digital elevation models, depth-to-water maps, and LiDAR-based tree volumes to spatially optimize extraction routes. In steep terrain, identifying suitable load paths for cable yarding and maximizing the use of each yarder setup is essential for optimizing economic performance. Detection of suitable end trees (tail spars) and intermediate support trees and discerning actual terrain form between contour lines—previously carried out by manual profile surveys—can now be easily replaced by LiDAR assessments (Dupire et al., 2015; Søvde, 2015).
Roads and transport. Monitoring forest road conditions includes gathering information on road geometries, surface conditions, condition of the drainage system, the presence of vegetation, and seasonal damage (Talbot & Rahif, 2017). Regular geometric shapes such as roads are easily discernable on images and high-resolution LiDAR, which can be used to provide information on widths, curve geometries, and slope (White et al., 2010). Similar to the in-field driving applications, Waga et al. (2020) used LiDAR-derived TWI models to predict road quality. They obtained an accuracy of up to 70 and 86% when the models were combined with other variables, such as surface quality index and soil type. Surface quality factors, including roughness, gradient, and camber, can also be recorded from a vehicle using a profilograph and then entered into the model to determine the effect of these factors on fuel consumption during timber hauling (Svenson & Fjeld, 2016).
3.2.2 Post-treatment Assessment of Disturbances
Harvest compliance in many jurisdictions includes minimizing rutting and damage to soils (Talbot & Rahif, 2017). Remote sensing can help locate and characterize ruts and assess the level of soil disturbance caused by an operation (Pierzchała et al., 2016). Haas et al. (2016) used photogrammetry to quantify variations in rutting related to tires of differing dimensions and the use of steel bands on forwarders. In a similar analysis, Marra et al. (2018) considered differences in tire pressure and the effect of several forwarder passes on rut development. Although this information is helpful at an individual rut level, remote sensing can also help locate and characterize ruts at the site level. Nevalainen et al. (2017) proposed a method for measuring rut depths from point clouds derived from images captured from a UAV. Talbot et al. (2018) used UAV-based orthomosaics to determine the extent and severity of rutting at a stand level and developed a method to reduce the need for field sampling in assessing site impacts. However, photogrammetry-based solutions have their limitations; for example, light and weather conditions can affect accuracy. Moreover, although surface models can be generated, occlusion greatly limits information related to site conditions for sites under a partial canopy or under brush mats on the ground.
4 Remote Sensing–Enabling Autonomy
The automation of the remote sensing information feed for active decision support and adaptive forest management is very close to reality. Embedded sensors that were used to remotely monitor hazardous or inaccessible environments (e.g., nuclear reactors or rail tracks) are being applied to the proximal monitoring of machine movements and perception of surrounding forest environments (Holmgren et al., 2019). SLAM, through onboard sensors such as 2D LiDAR scanners and stereo-cameras, has demonstrated its potential in estimating machine pose with reference to its complex unstructured forest surroundings either in combination with GPS (Pierzchała et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2015) or using only visual odometry in GPS-denied environments (Chandail & Vepakomma, 2020).
The last decade has seen a gradual paradigm shift toward developing “intelligent” machines converging with sensing systems, thereby moving from automation to autonomously navigating and negotiating different entities. In the aerial sector, miniaturized vision systems and artificial intelligence (AI) combined with remotely piloted systems or fully autonomous UAV swarms can now monitor and provide real-time situational awareness. For example, Hummingbird drones mounted with infrared-sensing instruments and AI are now used for fire monitoring (www.hummingbirddrones.ca). There is a movement away from man-heavy to man-light operations in manufacturing, agriculture, and mining sectors focusing on improving productivity or safety under challenging conditions. Although the forestry sector mandates environmentally friendly systems, the harsh diverse forest environment and obstacle-ridden forest floor may tax the limits and the reliability of all types of instruments (Billingsley et al., 2008). Although challenging to implement, the automation and autonomizing of future forestry is the focus of considerable research through programs, such as Forestry 4.0 (Canada, https://web.fpinnovations.ca/forest-operations-solutions-to-help-the-canadian-forest-industry/forestry-4-0/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4vhLQ8OEP0) or Auto2 (Sweden, Gelin et al., 2021), and the application of such programs to forestry issues (e.g., forest fire management, Sahal et al., 2021).
The success of any current or future forest management, particularly when dealing with triggered changes from extreme climate change–induced events, will require a prompt, timely, and reliable information feed. Remote sensing has been evolving, emerging, and converging with enabling technologies and offers reliable decision support and can ensure safer forest operations.
References
Ågren, A. M., Lidberg, W., Strömgren, M., et al. (2014). Evaluating digital terrain indices for soil wetness mapping—A Swedish case study. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 18, 3623–3634. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-3623-2014.
Andersen, H. E., McGaughey, R. J., & Reutebuch, S. E. (2008). Assessing the influence of flight parameters, interferometric processing, slope and canopy density on the accuracy of X-band IFSAR-derived forest canopy height models. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 29, 1495–1510. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160701736430.
Baltsavias, E. P. (1999). A comparison between photogrammetry and laser scanning. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 54, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2716(99)00014-3.
Billingsley, J., Visala, A., & Dunn, M. (2008). Robotics in agriculture and forestry. In B. Siciliano & O. Khatib (Eds.), Springer handbook of robotics (pp. 1065–1077). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Brunner, A., & Gizachew, B. (2014). Rapid detection of stand density, tree positions, and tree diameter with a 2D terrestrial laser scanner. European Journal of Forest Research, 133(5), 819–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-014-0799-1.
Budei, B. C., St-Onge, B., Hopkinson, C., et al. (2018). Identifying the genus or species of individual trees using a three-wavelength airborne LiDAR system. Remote Sensing of Environment, 204, 632–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.09.037.
Cardil, A., Vepakomma, U., & Brotons, L. (2017). Assessing pine processionary moth defoliation using unmanned aerial systems. Forests, 8(10), 402. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8100402.
Cerrejón, C., Valeria, O., Marchand, P., et al. (2021). No place to hide: Rare plant detection through remote sensing. Diversity and Distributions, 27, 948–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13244.
Chandail, R., & Vepakomma, U. (2020). Enhanced COGNIMO: an integrated system for real-time information update and navigation, working towards robust localisation (p. 36). Technical Report TR 2020, No. 65. Pointe-Claire: FPInnovations.
Chhatkuli, S., Mano, K., & Kogure, T., et al. (2012). Full waveform LiDAR and its evaluation in the mixed forest hilly region. ISPRS International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XXXIX, Part B7, 505–509.
Coops, N., Stanford, M., Old, K., et al. (2003). Assessment of dothistroma needle blight of Pinus radiata using airborne hyperspectral imagery. Phytopathology, 93, 1524–1532. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO.2003.93.12.1524.
Coops, N. C., Hilker, T., Wulder, M. A., et al. (2007). Estimating canopy structure of Douglas-fir forest stands from discrete-return LiDAR. Trees, 21(3), 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-006-0119-6.
Corbane, C., Lang, S., Pipkins, K., et al. (2015). Remote sensing for mapping natural habitats and their conservation status—New opportunities and challenges. ITC Journal, 37, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2014.11.005.
Crespo-Peremarch, P., Fournier, R. A., Nguyen, V.-T., et al. (2020). A comparative assessment of the vertical distribution of forest components using full-waveform airborne, discrete airborne and discrete terrestrial laser scanning data. Forest Ecology and Management, 473, 118268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118268.
Dalponte, M., Ørka, H. O., Ene, L. T., et al. (2014). Tree crown delineation and tree species classification in boreal forests using hyperspectral and ALS data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 140, 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.09.006.
Dupire, S., Bourrier, F., & Berger, F. (2015). Predicting load path and tensile forces during cable yarding operations on steep terrain. Journal of Forest Research, 21, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10310-015-0503-4.
Evju, M., & Sverdrup-Thygeson, A. (2016). Spatial configuration matters: A test of the habitat amount hypothesis for plants in calcareous grasslands. Landscape Ecology, 31, 1891–1902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0405-7.
Fassnacht, F. E., Latifi, H., Ghosh, A., et al. (2014). Assessing the potential of hyperspectral imagery to map bark beetle-induced tree mortality. Remote Sensing of Environment, 140, 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.09.014.
Fekety, P. A., Falkowski, M. J., Hudak, A. T. (2015). Temporal transferability of LiDAR-based imputation of forest inventory attributes. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 45, 422–435. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2014-0405.
Flisberg, P., Rönnqvist, M., Willén, E., et al. (2021). Optimized locations of landings in forest operations. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 52(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2021-0032.
Gaudreau, J. P., & Lirette, J. (2020). Utilisation de la cartographie de la vigueur des tiges pour guider les operations de récolte (p. 4). InfoNote. Pointe-Claire: FPInnovations.
Gelin, O., Rossander, M., Semberg, T., et al. (2021). Automation for autonomous terrain mobility (AUTO2). Final Report–Stage 2. Arbetsrapport 1077-2021. Uppsala: Skogforsk.
Goodbody, T. R. H., Coops, N. C., & White, J. C. (2019). Digital aerial photogrammetry for updating area-based forest inventories: A review of opportunities, challenges, and future directions. Current Forestry Reports, 5, 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-019-00087-2.
Haas, J., Hagge Ellhöft, K., Schack-Kirchner, H., et al. (2016). Using photogrammetry to assess rutting caused by a forwarder—A comparison of different tires and bogie tracks. Soil and Tillage Research, 163, 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.04.008.
Hamraz, H., Contreras, M. A., & Zhang, J. (2016). A robust approach for tree segmentation in deciduous forests using small-footprint airborne LiDAR data. ITC Journal, 52, 532–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2016.07.006.
Hatala, J. A., Crabtree, R. L., Halligan, K. Q., et al. (2010). Landscape-scale patterns of forest pest and pathogen damage in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Remote Sensing of Environment, 114, 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2009.09.008.
Heinzel, J., & Koch, B. (2011). Exploring full-waveform LiDAR parameters for tree species classification. ITC Journal, 13, 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2010.09.010.
Holmgren, J. (2004). Prediction of tree height, basal area and stem volume in forest stands using airborne laser scanning. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 19, 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827580410019472.
Holmgren, J., Tulldahl, M., Nordlöf, J., et al. (2019). Mobile laser scanning for estimating tree stem diameter using segmentation and tree spine calibration. Remote Sensing, 11(23), 2781. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11232781.
Immitzer, M., Neuwirth, M., Böck, S., et al. (2019). Optimal input features for tree species classification in central Europe based on multi-temporal Sentinel-2 data. Remote Sensing, 11(22), 2599. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11222599.
Kankare, V., Vauhkonen, J., Tanhuanpaa, T., et al. (2014). Accuracy in estimation of timber assortments and stem distribution—A comparison of airborne and terrestrial laser scanning techniques. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 97, 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.08.008.
Katoh, M., & Gougeon, F. A. (2012). Improving the precision of tree counting by combining tree detection with crown delineation and classification on homogeneity guided smoothed high resolution (50 cm) multispectral airborne digital data. Remote Sensing, 4, 1411–1424. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs4051411.
Keefe, R., Wempe, A., Becker, R., et al. (2019). Positioning methods and the use of location and activity data in forests. Forests, 10, 458. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10050458.
Lagouarde, J.-P., Ballans, H., Moreau, P., et al. (2000). Experimental study of brightness surface temperature angular variations of maritime pine (Pinus pinaster) stands. Remote Sensing of Environment, 72(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(99)00085-1.
Lausch, A., Pause, M., Merbach, I., et al. (2013). A new multiscale approach for monitoring vegetation using remote sensing-based indicators in laboratory, field, and landscape. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 185, 1215–1235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-012-2627-8.
Leckie, D. G., Gougeon, F. A., Tinis, S., et al. (2005). Automated tree recognition in old growth conifer stands with high resolution digital imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment, 94(3), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2004.10.011.
Li, J., & Hu, B. (2012). Exploring high-density airborne light detection and ranging data for classification of mature coniferous and deciduous trees in complex Canadian forests. Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, 6(1), 063536. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.6.063536.
Li, J., & Vepakomma, U. (2020). Automatic terrain feature detection and drivability assessment in forest (p. 18). Technical Report TR2020, No. 65. Pointe-Claire: FPInnovations.
Liang, X., Wang, Y., Jaakkola, A., et al. (2015). Forest data collection using terrestrial image-based point clouds from a handheld camera compared to terrestrial and personal laser scanning. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 53(9), 5117–5132. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2015.2417316.
Liang, X., Hyyppä, J., Kaartinen, H., et al. (2018). International benchmarking of terrestrial laser scanning approaches for forest inventories. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 144, 137–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.06.021.
Lussier, J. M., & Meek, P. (2014). Managing heterogeneous stands using a multiple-treatment irregular shelterwood method. Journal of Forestry, 112, 287–295. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.13-041.
Maltamo, M., Bollandsås, O. M., Næsset, E., et al. (2010). Different plot selection strategies for field training data in ALS-assisted forest inventory. Forestry, 84(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpq039.
Maltamo, M., Packalen, P., & Kangas, A. (2021). From comprehensive field inventories to remotely sensed wall-to-wall stand attribute data—A brief history of management inventories in the Nordic countries. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 51(2), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2020-0322.
Marchi, E., Chung, W., Visser, R., et al. (2018). Sustainable forest operations (SFO): A new paradigm in a changing world and climate. Science of the Total Environment, 634, 1385–1397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.084.
Marra, E., Cambi, M., Fernandez-Lacruz, R., et al. (2018). Photogrammetric estimation of wheel rut dimensions and soil compaction after increasing numbers of forwarder passes. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 33(6), 613–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2018.1427789.
McRoberts, R. E., Chen, Q., Gormanson, D. D., et al. (2018). The shelf-life of airborne laser scanning data for enhancing forest inventory inferences. Remote Sensing of Environment, 206, 254–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.12.017.
Meek, P., & Lussier, J. M. (2008). Trials of partial cuts in heterogeneous forests using the multiple-treatment approach. Pointe-Claire: FPInnovations - Feric Division, Advantage Report, 10(2), 1–16.
Meng, R., Dennison, P. E., Zhao, F., et al. (2018). Mapping canopy defoliation by herbivorous insects at the individual tree level using bi-temporal airborne imaging spectroscopy and LiDAR measurements. Remote Sensing of Environment, 215, 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.06.008.
Modzelewska, A., Fassnacht, F. E., & Stereńczak, K. (2020). Tree species identification within an extensive forest area with diverse management regimes using airborne hyperspectral data. ITC Journal, 84, 101960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2019.101960.
Murphy, P. N. C., Ogilvie, J., Castonguay, M., et al. (2008). Improving forest operations planning through high-resolution flow-channel and wet-areas mapping. The Forestry Chronicle, 84, 568–574. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc84568-4.
Næsset, E. (2007). Airborne laser scanning as a method in operational forest inventory: Status of accuracy assessments accomplished in Scandinavia. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 22, 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827580701672147.
Natesan, S. A., Armenakis, C., & Vepakomma, U. (2020). Individual tree species identification using Dense Convolutional Network (DenseNet) on multitemporal RGB images from UAV. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems, 8, 310–333. https://doi.org/10.1139/juvs-2020-0014.
Nevalainen, P., Salmivaara, A., Ala-Ilomäki, J., et al. (2017). Estimating the rut depth by UAV photogrammetry. Remote Sensing, 9(12), 1279. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9121279.
Picchio, R., Proto, A. R., Civitarese, V., et al. (2019). Recent contributions of some fields of the electronics in development of forest operations technologies. Electronics, 8, 1465. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics8121465.
Pierzchała, M., Talbot, B., & Astrup, R. (2016). Measuring wheel ruts with close-range photogrammetry. Forestry, 89(4), 383–391. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpw009.
Pierzchała, M., Giguère, P., & Astrup, R. (2018). Mapping forests using an unmanned ground vehicle with 3D LiDAR and graph-SLAM. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 145, 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.12.034.
Pitt, D. G., Wagner, R. G., Hall, R. J., et al. (1997). Use of remote sensing for forest vegetation management: A problem analysis. The Forestry Chronicle, 73(4), 459–477. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc73459-4.
Pouliot, D. A., King, D. J., Bell, F. W., et al. (2002). Automated tree crown detection and delineation in high-resolution digital camera imagery of coniferous forest regeneration. Remote Sensing of Environment, 82, 322–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00050-0.
Pouliot, D., Latifovic, R., Pasher, J., et al. (2019). Assessment of convolution neural networks for wetland mapping with Landsat in the central Canadian boreal forest region. Remote Sensing, 11(7), 772. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11070772.
Puliti, S., Ørka, H. O., Gobakken, T., et al. (2015). Inventory of small forest areas using an unmanned aerial system. Remote Sensing, 7, 9632–9654. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs70809632.
Ring, E., Ågren, A., Bergkvist, I., et al. (2020). A guide to using wet area maps in forestry. Arbetsrapport 1051-2020. Uppsala: Skogforsk.
Risbøl, O., Briese, C., Doneus, M., et al. (2014). Monitoring cultural heritage by comparing DEMs derived from historical aerial photographs and airborne laser scanning. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 16(2), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2014.04.002.
Rönnqvist, M., Flisberg, P., & Willén, E. (2020). Spatial optimization of ground based primary extraction routes using the BestWay decision support system. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 51(5), 675–691. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2020-0238.
Rummer, B. (2002). Forest operations technology. In D. N. Wear, & J. G. Greis (Eds.), Southern Forest Resource Assessment (p. 635). General Technical Report SRS-53. Asheville: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
Safonova, A., Tabik, S., Alcaraz-Segura, D., et al. (2019). Detection of fir trees (Abies sibirica) damaged by the bark beetle in unmanned aerial vehicle images with deep learning. Remote Sensing, 11(6), 643. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11060643.
Sahal, R., Alsamhi, S. H., Breslin, J. G., et al. (2021). Industry 4.0 towards Forestry 4.0: Fire detection use case. Sensors, 21, 694. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21030694.
Sibona, E., Vitali, A., Meloni, F., et al. (2017). Direct measurement of tree height provides different results on the assessment of LiDAR accuracy. Forests, 8, 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8010007.
Søvde, N. E. (2015). Algorithms for estimating the suitability of potential landing sites. Mathematical and Computational Forestry & Natural-Resource Science, 7(1), 1–8.
Spittlehouse, D. L. (2005). Integrating climate change adaptation into forest management. The Forestry Chronicle, 81(5), 691–695. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc81691-5.
St-Onge, B., Audet, F. A., & Bégin, J. (2015). Characterizing the height structure and composition of a boreal forest using an individual tree crown approach applied to photogrammetric point clouds. Forests, 6, 3899–3922. https://doi.org/10.3390/f6113899.
Svenson, G., & Fjeld, D. (2016). The impact of road geometry and surface roughness on fuel consumption of logging trucks. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 31(5), 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2015.1092574.
Sylvain, J. D., Drolet, G., & Brown, N. (2019). Mapping dead forest cover using a deep convolutional neural network and digital aerial photography. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 156, 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2019.07.010.
Talbot, B., & Astrup, R. (2021). A review of sensors, sensor-platforms and methods used in 3D modelling of soil displacement after timber harvesting. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering, 42(1), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.5552/crojfe.2021.837.
Talbot, B., & Rahif, J. (2017). Applications of remote and proximal sensing for improved precision in forest operations. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering, 38, 327–336.
Talbot, B., Pierzchała, M., & Astrup, R. (2018). An operational UAV-based approach for stand-level assessment of soil disturbance after forest harvesting. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 33, 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2017.1418421.
Tang, J., Chen, Y., Kukko, A., et al. (2015). SLAM-aided stem mapping for forest inventory with small-footprint mobile LiDAR. Forests, 6, 4588–4606. https://doi.org/10.3390/f6124390.
Tighe, M. L., Balzter, H., & McNairn, H. (2009). Comparison of X/C-HH InSAR and L-PolInSAR for canopy height estimation in a lodgepole pine forest. In H. Lacoste, & L. Ouwehand (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Science and Applications of SAR Polarimetry and Polarimetric Interferometry (PolInSAR 2009). Paris: European Space Agency.
Trier, O. D., Salberg, A. B., Kermit, M., et al. (2018). Tree species classification in Norway from airborne hyperspectral and airborne laser scanning data. European Journal of Remote Sensing, 51, 336–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/22797254.2018.1434424.
Tuominen, S., Balazs, A., Saari, H., et al. (2015). Unmanned aerial system imagery and photogrammetric canopy height data in area-based estimation of forest variables. Silva Fennica, 49(5),1348. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.1348.
Vepakomma, U., & Cormier, D. (2017). Potential of multi-temporal UAV-borne LiDAR in assessing effectiveness of silvicultural treatments. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLII-2, 393–397. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W6-393-2017.
Vepakomma, U., & Cormier, D. (2019). Valuing forest stand at a glance with UAV-based LIDAR. ISPRS International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLII-2/W13, 643. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W13-643-2019.
Vepakomma, U., Cormier, D., & Thiffault, N. (2015). Potential of UAV based convergent photogrammetry in monitoring regeneration standards. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XL-1, 281–285. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-1-W4-281-2015.
Vepakomma, U., Chandail, R., Evans, C., et al. (2021). SBW AIDD: Developing an adaptive and intelligent defoliator—Predicting tree level SBW annual defoliation at a UAV platform (p. 39). Technical report TR2021 No 74. Pointe-Claire: FPInnovations.
Waga, K., Malinen, J., & Tokola, T. (2020). A topographic wetness index for forest road quality assessment: An application in the lakeland region of Finland. Forests, 11, 1165. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11111165.
White, R. A., Dietterick, B. C., Mastin, T., et al. (2010). Forest roads mapped using LiDAR in steep forested terrain. Remote Sensing, 2, 1120–1141. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs2041120.
White, J. C., Wulder, M. A., Varhola, A., et al. (2013). A best practices guide for generating forest inventory attributes from airborne laserscanning data using the area-based approach (p. 50). Information Report FI-X-10. Victoria: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Canadian Wood Fibre Centre, Pacific Forestry Centre.
White, J. C., Coops, N. C., Wulder, M. A., et al. (2016). Remote sensing technologies for enhancing forest inventories: A review. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 42, 619–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/07038992.2016.1207484.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vepakomma, U., Cormier, D., Hansson, L., Talbot, B. (2023). Remote Sensing at Local Scales for Operational Forestry. In: Girona, M.M., Morin, H., Gauthier, S., Bergeron, Y. (eds) Boreal Forests in the Face of Climate Change. Advances in Global Change Research, vol 74. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15988-6_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15988-6_27
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-15987-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-15988-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)