Abstract
Forest growth and productivity are critically important at a range of spatial scales, to better understand the terrestrial carbon cycle globally to sustainably manage the forest locally. Field measurements of forestry parameters to assess productivity at any spatial scale consume substantial resources in terms of both time and cost. Remote sensing enables a highly accurate approach for observation of forested ecosystems, providing the tools to estimate many biophysical parameters across a range of scales. There are a number of different methods of measuring the productivity of forested ecosystems using remote sensing. In this review, we summarize the three general approaches—productivity via physiological measurements, dimension analysis, or relationships of growth to foliage concentrations and light—and provide specific examples throughout on the use and application of remote sensing technologies. The paper concludes with some general statements on future work and the way forward.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Information on forest production is critically important for a wide range of environmental applications. At global scales, information on the growth of forests is critical for calculations related to the terrestrial carbon cycle. Forests have been estimated to absorb up to one quarter of carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion (2.8 Gt C year−1) [1]; however, uncertainties are large with significant variation both spatially and temporally, in particular in photosynthesis with even small differences in forest productivity across the globe likely to have marked impacts on overall carbon sequestration rates [2, 3]. Forest growth information is also critical for sustainable management [4], allowing managers to assess both current and future yields of forest stands. This, in turn, has economic implications for regional and national forest-dependent economies and their associated industries. In addition to these global climate and regional economic drivers, sustained forest productivity supports a range of ecosystem goods and services, such as the provision of clean water, carbon storage, and biodiversity. This increasing need for information on the growth and productivity of forest ecosystems globally has resulted in high demands for accurate, timely, and comprehensive information at global, regional, and local scales.
Field measurements of forestry parameters to assess productivity at any spatial scale consume substantial resources in terms of both time and cost. Over large spatial and temporal scales, these field measurements are virtually impossible [5–7]. Remote sensing enables a highly accurate approach for observation of forested ecosystems, providing the tools to estimate many biophysical parameters across a range of scales. In fact, it could be argued that remote sensing is the only technology able to offer repeatable and consistent observations on the role of vegetation and its productivity across the globe [8]. Indeed, we may be today in the golden age of remote sensing, with a panoply of satellite systems, sensor types, and largely free and open data access policies that facilitate the widespread application of remote sensing, making access easier than ever before. However, with this diversity of data comes potential confusion: different types of sensors provide different indicators of forest productivity and combined with a range of complex interpretation techniques results in many types of remote sensing products relevant to forested landscapes [9]. Additionally, no single remote sensing platform or system can meet the needs of all researchers and managers interested in forestry production, as each platform has specific limitations and capabilities [10•]. As a result, it is important for remote sensing specialists and forest managers alike to have a thorough understanding both of different sensors’ capabilities and of the general approaches used to test and assess the predictive strength of the biophysical or forest inventory parameters under consideration.
Traditionally, from an ecological perspective, forest productivity can be viewed through a set of environmental constraints which, when overcome, allow productivity to be maximized. Factors such as climate, precipitation, soil chemistry, and topographic position are all regarded as key variables placing environmental constraints on production [11, 12]. Conversely, a forest stand may be categorized by potential wood production through developing relationships between structural attributes, age (if known), and dominant species. From this, growth rates from yield tables and models can be derived [13, 14]. Despite these underlying relationships, links between the environment and forest productivity, and growth and forest productivity, are generally site and species specific.
Measurements of Forest Productivity
There are a number of different methods of measuring the productivity of forested ecosystems. These methods can be segregated into three general approaches: productivity via physiological measurements, dimension analysis, or relationships of growth to foliage concentrations and light (Fig. 1). Each approach is explained in detail below.
Productivity via Physiology
The gross primary production (GPP) of vegetation is the amount of organic matter synthesized and accumulated in tissue per unit of time plus the amount used by plant respiration or the product of the absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (APAR) and the vegetation light-use efficiency (LUE). LUE is often considered to represent the efficiency that the foliage can use APAR to produce biomass [15••]. The GPP, less the respiration, is known as the net primary production (NPP) [16, 17]. One of the most commonly applied methods for measuring GPP is using eddy covariance (EC) techniques. This technique exploits the covariance between fluctuations in the CO2 mixing ratio in the air column with the vertical wind velocity above the canopy to predict the carbon fluxes [18]. A number of limitations exist when using the EC method; first, the underlying theory behind EC assumes uniform conditions within the local environment, principally within radius of the EC footprint (a few hundred square metres to a square kilometre) specifically in the upwind direction [18], which is known to be often violated in complex forest stands, particularly over changing topography. Second, the size of the footprint is large making GPP estimates of a single tree or small stand impossible. Finally, GPP can be derived from net ecosystem production (NEP) only if ecosystem respiration is known. As a result, remote sensing opportunities to measure and monitor GPP are numerous.
Productivity via Dimension Analysis
The most common approach to estimate forest growth is by developing relationships between growth and direct measurements of the size and weight of plants or plant parts [16, 17]. These relationships are often developed by dividing a forest stand into components such as trees greater than 10-cm diameter; understorey and shrubs; and ground cover, each of which is considered separately. A sampling programme is then designed typically involving one or more types of samples: non-destructive measurements (e.g. diameter, height), destructive measurements which could involve the dissection of branches and boles and partitioning them into leaves and small branches and estimating their dry weight or volume, and measurements of litter fall. Regression analysis is used to obtain correlations between the field measured variables and the attributes of interest such as total (or change in) biomass and volume. In many cases, forest productivity is estimated using only the direct measurement of boles themselves with indices such as current annual increment (CAI; i.e. the annual change in a forest attribute); the increment for a given period of time or periodic annual increment (PAI); and the mean annual increment (MAI), which will all vary according to the age and growing conditions of the stand [19].
Productivity via Light and Foliar Concentration
Third, estimates of forest growth can be obtained through the development of indices that relate to the individual plants’ foliage properties which are assumed to correspond to the overall functioning and plant condition. One of the most common indices is the leaf area index (LAI), defined as the mean leaf surface area above a square metre of ground surface [20]. For a given species or stand, there are strong relationships between LAI and productivity. LAI has been shown to be a highly effective expression of productivity and is more directly expressive of the photosynthesis of the vegetation. Leaf chlorophyll content and/or concentration has also been shown to be an effective indicator of vegetation productivity, developmental stage, and stress [21, 22]. In poor production vegetation, the chlorophyll content of leaves decreases, thus changing the proportion of light-absorbing pigments resulting in a reduction in overall light absorption [23]. Like chlorophyll, foliar nutrient content is also a key indicator of forest productivity with a range of studies highlighting consistent and strong, generalizable relationships between foliar nitrogen for example and the rates of net photosynthesis and leaf respiration of forest vegetation. Foliar nitrogen has been shown to then link to canopy-level nitrogen which at broader spatial and temporal scales is related to annual net primary production and soil nitrogen mineralization [24–28]. As a result, estimates of foliar nitrogen can provide insights into terrestrial carbon and nitrogen cycles and can be a useful indicator and input variable into models of forest and ecosystem productivity [27, 29••].
Forest Productivity Estimates Using Remotely Sensed Data
Each of these three approaches for assessing forest productivity can be used in combination with remote sensing to provide estimates over large spatial scales and at lower cost than field measurements. A summary of these approaches is shown in Table 1.
Physiology
GPP/NPP
Global estimates of the incoming photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) can be derived from satellite observation using top-of-atmosphere measurements of solar radiance and modelling approaches [31]. The fraction of PAR (fPAR) that is absorbed by plants to provide the energy input depends on the LAI of the vegetation, which can also be estimated from satellite observations (see later section). A large number of studies at a variety of scales [32–34] have demonstrated the relationship between APAR and the visible and near-infrared regions of the electromagnetic spectrum using, for example, the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI [32]). Using these relationships in the mid to late 1980’s, researchers applied NOAA AVHRR imagery to predict vegetation productivity for Africa [35], North America [36], and the entire world [37]. Goward et al. [38] first related the NDVI to NPP and developed LUE factors to convert the annual APAR energy to NPP for different biome types. Box et al. [39] evaluated the accuracy of AVHRR-derived vegetation indices as a predictor of biomass, primary productivity, and net CO2 flux. The launch of MODIS on TERRA and AQUA led to the MODIS GPP product (MOD17), described in detail by Running et al. [30•], which also relies on the LUE approach to model productivity using fPAR and ground station meteorological data. In this approach, the maximum LUE is dependent on vegetation type and is reduced by multipliers based on climate including cold temperatures and vapour pressure deficit (VPD). Heinsch et al. [40] showed that MOD17 GPP product had a relatively strong correlation to EC estimates of GPP across North America (r = 0.859 ± 0.173), but overestimated tower estimates at most sites (relative error = 24 %). Global mosaics of monthly GPP and annual NPP are now routinely available for analysis [41].
Building on the LUE principles, other models using satellite observations have been developed that also predict forest productivity. For example, the 3-PGS (Physiological Principles Predicting Growth from Satellites) model [42] is a simplified version of the original implementation of the 3-PG model [43••] and is driven primarily by vegetation light absorption, which determines the potential physiological rates. 3-PGS also estimates APAR as the product of PAR and fPAR, estimated from satellite-derived indices. 3-PGS then calculates the utilized reduced portion of APAR by the most constraining environmental modifiers which include (a) daytime atmospheric VPD, (b) soil water availability, and (c) the frequency of sub-freezing temperatures (<−2 °C). APAR is also further reduced by non-optimal temperatures that reduce the LUE. Availability of nutrients, specifically nitrogen, is modelled using a soil fertility modifier. Unlike the MODIS GPP algorithm, 3PGS utilizes a soil water balance model to calculate water stress as the difference between total monthly rainfall, plus available soil water stored from the previous month, and transpiration, calculated using the Penman-Monteith equation with canopy conductance modified by the LAI of the forest [44].
Forest Dimensions
Diameter and Height
Large-scale aerial photography (1:200–1:3000) was the first remote sensing technology to be used to estimate forest dimensions, principally height and volume, often in a fraction of the time and cost of traditional field surveys. For example, in the 1970s and 1980s, researchers in Canada established sampling approaches using large-scale photography to predict volume. Hall et al. [45] utilized 12 diameter production models and large-scale aerial photography (1:1000) to model relationships between tree height, crown area, and diameter over a variety of species including white spruce and lodgepole pine. Results indicated that for all measured tree species, aerial photography-derived tree heights were not significantly different from felled measurements. These results were similar to those reported from Titus and Morgan [46] who investigated height estimates from tree felling and large-scale aerial photography. Again using photography, in the Yukon, Canada, measurements were found not to be significantly different from felled heights. The standard deviations of field and photo height errors were 0.95 and 1.17 m, respectively.
With the availability of satellite imagery from the Landsat series of satellites in 1972, mapping of forest productivity, such as height and volume, significantly increased. Cook et al. [19] investigated the usefulness of Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) and biogeographical data to estimate productivity in three sites in the USA. Forest productivity was measured by indices of productivity (e.g. bole increment). Results showed that, in general, the regression and classification models were highly significant; however, they left a considerable amount of the variance unexplained, with low correlations ranging between 0.27 and 0.42. As a result, Cook et al. [19] concluded that approach could be used to model productivity of a region (<1000 km2) with a high degree of confidence using both spectral and biogeographical data (such as soil productivity and solar insolation); however, the reliability of single pixel estimates would be poor. This finding generally remains true across many studies, due to the non-linear and complex relationships between forest structure and reflectance in the visible and infrared regions of the spectrum. A complementary approach to relating the spectral and spatial responses from remotely sensed data to forest height and diameter is through the development of numerical models that attempt to model the tree geometry from the images themselves. Strahler and Li [47, 48] proposed models that assume trees are widely spaced cones, surmising that reflectance measured by the satellite sensor is a mixture of shadow, understorey, and tree crown. The model was used to estimate tree stocking and height in sparse to moderately stocked ponderosa pine plantations using Landsat imagery. The model was found to have produced responses within 10 % of the true measured values. In a related study, Franklin et al. [49] used a similar model to simulate canopy reflectance of woodland and savannah in the Sudan and Sahel. In this modified model, the trees were hemispheres on sticks—not inverted cones as in Strahler and Li’s [48] model. The results showed a correlation between the observed and predicted values of tree density and height greater than 85 %. The approach continues to be used in a diverse range of locations such as Queensland, Australia [50], and British Columbia [51].
Aerial photography and satellite imagery, both of which rely on measuring the reflectance from the sun, are known as passive remote sensing systems. In contrast, active remote sensing approaches, such as Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and Radio Detection and Ranging (RADAR), send light or radio wavelengths, respectively, to the Earth’s surface and measure both the time taken for the emitted pulse to return to the sensor and the backscatter of the emitted signal. LiDAR uses pulsed lasers to measure the distance to objects on the Earth and comprises three main components: the laser, an inertial navigational measurement unit (IMU), and a global positioning system (GPS) unit with airborne units using either helicopter or airplane platforms [52, 53]. In the case of LiDAR, the measurement of the return interval allows for the direct detection of the three-dimensional distribution of vegetation canopy components as well as sub-canopy topography, providing both high spatial resolution topographical information as well as highly accurate estimates of vegetation height, cover, volume, biomass, and other aspects of forest productivity.
LiDAR systems can record either discrete returns or the full waveform of the return pulse. Discrete return LiDAR systems typically record up to five returns per laser footprint [54] and are optimized for the derivation of sub-metre accuracy terrain surface heights [55, 56]. Full waveform LiDAR systems acquire a fully digitized returned pulse providing sub-metre vertical profiles. If the LiDAR data is acquired at a very high density (dependent on the number of LiDAR pulses per metre), individual tree crowns can be readily observed. Computer-based algorithms can be applied to automatically identify tree crowns and extract individual tree attributes such as total height, crown height, and crown diameter [57•]. With respect to height, studies have demonstrated that the error for individual tree heights of given species is <1.0 m [58] and <0.5 m for plot-based estimates of maximum and mean canopy height (although this accuracy is also dependent on the terrain, the density of canopies, and the mission parameters) [59–61, 62••, 63]. LiDAR estimates of height have been shown to be more consistent than manual, field-based measurements [61].
Volume
The use of satellite passive remote sensing data to predict stand volume, like height, is limited. Accuracies are generally too low to be of practical value for operational forest management planning [64]. Horler and Ahern [65] examined Landsat TM data to estimate volume in Canadian boreal forests. They found the red, NIR, and SWIR spectral bands were most correlated with changes in stem volume. However, the approach was limited to stands less than 60 years old. Trotter et al. [66] also used Landsat TM imagery to predict volume of New Zealand Pinus radiata plantations, reporting errors greater than 25 %. In addition, many studies have highlighted the issue with shadowing and its dominating effect on much of the spectral response.
Estimation of volume from LiDAR data is best achieved using the area-based approach [62••], which has become the standard procedure for processing LiDAR point cloud data. In this approach, LiDAR hits are accumulated within a given area (such as within the plot dimensions) and statistical properties of these point clouds derived and through empirical relationships related to a range of plot-level attributes (e.g. volume, basal area, biomass). This area-based approach has been shown to be highly stable across many forest types, ages, and structures due to LiDAR point clouds’ being a detailed measurement of all reflecting surfaces within a canopy (i.e. foliage, branches, and stems) [57•]. Airborne LIDAR was applied as early as 1980 to predict forest volume [67] and has since been applied in diverse jurisdictions including Scandinavia, Finland, USA, Canada, and Australia [62••, 68–70].
In addition to LIDAR, RADAR offers potential to map forest volume and biomass from both space-borne and airborne platforms, especially at lower biomass sites. Early studies by Le Toan et al. [71] and Dobson [72] examined the RADAR backscatter from various forests stands. To date, the majority of studies investigating the use of RADAR data for biomass estimation have focused largely on coniferous forests particularly in North America, Eurasia, Australia, and some tropical regions which have generally been found to be successful due to the penetrative capacity of microwaves. However, using single polarized data, C, L, and P-band data has been shown to saturate at biomass levels of 20–40, 60–100, and 150 Mg ha−1, respectively [73]. In Queensland, Lucas et al. [74] evaluated the use of multi-frequency RADAR data for quantifying open eucalypt forests and woodlands biomass. They concluded that L-band HV backscatter data acquired at large incidence angles (45° or greater) was best correlated with biomass up to 80–85 Mg ha−1 [74]. Single-pass X-band InSAR data has also been used to volume and biomass with Solberg et al. [75], utilizing InSAR stand height estimates in the boreal regions of southern Norway to predict biomass with no apparent saturation effect.
Stocking and Crown Dimensions
When the spatial resolution of optical imagery increases to the point that multiple pixels are evident within single tree crowns, individual tree detection allowing direct tree counting is possible, as well as the estimation of individual crown attributes. This type of information can be used by the forest managers to estimate overall stand productivity and has been demonstrated to be useful in forest management decisions, such as the timing of silviculture activities including pruning, thinning, and harvesting, particularly in plantation forestry [76]. With the advent of very high spatial resolution satellite and airborne imagery, individual tree detection algorithms have increased in number, complexity, and overall accuracy. With nominal resolutions <4 m, the capacity now exists to map and monitor forest patterns in greater detail [77]. A general rule is that the spatial resolution of the imagery should be much greater than the size of tree crowns (more than 9 pixels per crown), with aerial or satellite imagery having spatial resolutions between 10 and 4 m preferred [78]. Tree crown detection and delineation algorithms can broadly be categorized as local maxima/minima, template matching, region growing, and edge detection approaches, with each using different approaches to either delineate trees and/or delineate crowns [79, 80•]. Culvenor [80•] developed an individual tree detection routine for aerial digital camera imagery and found the approach was best suited to trees which have well-defined crown, noting that individual tree crown delineation from remotely sensed imagery is not a realistic expectation—even for human interpreters—in structurally complex forests. The study cited variations in viewing and sun angle which inhibit the ability to achieve repeatable results. The widespread use of LiDAR data today has allowed further improvements with the apex of the crown being more easily assessed using LIDAR data then passive imagery. As a result, the use of a LIDAR canopy model as input to these existing routines has been shown to improve tree detection and crown metrics markedly [81–83].
Leaf Properties
Progress in the past decade in imaging spectroscopy has allowed high spectral resolution remote sensing to become a viable approach to monitor canopy constituents. Hand-held, airborne, or space-borne imaging spectrometers are able to capture reflected light across the full electromagnetic spectrum at very fine spectral resolution, facilitating detailed analysis of narrow absorption features, in a more comprehensive way than more conventional, broad-band sensors such as Landsat and MODIS [84]. A range of techniques are available to derive pigment and nutrient concentrations from foliage including empirical approaches largely dependent on developing relationships between discrete spectral reflectance bands while minimizing viewing angle and soil background effects [85, 86]. More analytical techniques can use imaging spectroscopy to infer biochemical properties using radiative transfer models and estimates of leaf optical properties [87]. Among the most important biochemical compounds in terms of forest productivity are chlorophyll and nitrogen, both of which have been directly related to the photosynthetic capacity in plants [84, 88].
Chlorophyll
Variations in foliage chlorophyll content is a key indicator of forest productivity [22, 89], as in less productive sites vegetation leaf chlorophyll content decreases. This in turn changes the proportion of light-absorbing pigments and leads to less overall absorption [23]. Chlorophyll concentration in foliage absorbs red wavelengths (680 nm) while the placement and shape of the transition between red absorption and near-infrared reflectance (known as the “red edge”, the region between 690 and 740 nm [89]) is also highly sensitive to chlorophyll content [89–91]. A number of papers have developed indices that can be applied across a range of forest structural and productivity gradients. For example, Datt [92] developed a series of chlorophyll indices suitable for eucalypt vegetation at both the leaf and stand level, and Barry et al. [93] utilized hand-held spectra to assess if reliable and robust methods of spectral analysis can be developed for detecting chlorophyll of plants under stress in commercially important forest production species.
Nitrogen
Nitrogen, like chlorophyll, is a key indicator of forest productivity and an important limiting factor in many forested areas of the globe. It is also a critical nutrient for crop monitoring and yield estimation [94]. As compared with absorption features in the visible and near-infrared spectrums, nitrogen content absorption features occur in the short-wave infrared (SWIR) portion, and as a result, imaging spectroscopy with capacity in the 1100–2500-nm range is often viewed as important for detection of the nitrogen signal in forested vegetation. However, vegetation with limited nitrogen uptake will also have lower chlorophyll content, which stands as an indicator for non-optimal photosynthesis [95]. Imagery from the (now decommissioned) Earth-Observer-1 Hyperion sensor and AVIRIS, an airborne imaging spectrometer (research-based instrument designed and managed by NASA), have both been used to generate predictions of nitrogen content within 0.25 % of ground estimates, meeting the needs for accurate spatial estimates of nitrogen concentration for environmental studies in the eastern USA [96]. Coops et al. [97] and Coops et al. [98] demonstrated the use of Hyperion image data for mapping nutrient concentrations in Eucalyptus and Pinus species. These models initially focused on nitrogen, but Coops et al. [97] also mapped the concentration of 11 macro- and micronutrients in a pine stand. Similarly, Sims et al. [99] mapped the concentration of 12 macro- and micronutrients in a Queensland exotic pine estate using a variety of least squares methods [100].
Leaf Area Index
Rather than estimation of the pigment and nutrient concentration of the foliage itself, the amount of foliage (measured as the leaf area index or LAI) of stands is also a key indicator of forest productivity principally due to its importance for photosynthesis, transpiration, evapotranspiration [101], and, in turn, GPP. LAI is also a key input in ecosystem models that simulate carbon and hydrological cycles [102], with Running et al. [103] being among the first to couple estimates of LAI with extrapolation and simulation models that predict forest productivity. Remote sensing estimation of LAI has been undertaken using a number of approaches. The most widely used relationship is that between LAI and NDVI. Curran et al. [104] related Landsat TM NDVI data to seasonal LAI for regions of slash pine in northern Florida. A number of forest structural variables were collected for 16 plots, and biomass for each plot was calculated by selectively felling a proportion of trees within each DBH class. LAI was developed from the biomass estimates. Linear relationships were developed between NDVI and LAI, with r 2 values ranging from 0.35–0.86. LAI is now routinely produced as a biophysical attribute from MODIS, SPOT, and other remote sensing satellite systems, and as a result, algorithms have become more comprehensive and now include both red and near-infrared surface reflectances, as well as information on view/illumination geometry and land cover [105]. This is supported by compositing techniques developed to produce 8-day and monthly LAI estimates.
Summary and Future Research
The past decade has seen significant advancement in research and applications in a wide suite of remote sensing technologies to assess forest productivity. Previously, the use of single remote sensing scenes, such as Landsat TM imagery, or the limited use of time series of coarser spatial resolution imagery has hampered widespread use and adoption of remote sensing indicators of forest growth at regional or global scales. More recently, the widespread use of MODIS data and the ongoing building of a long-term data archive, as well as the ready availability and free access to Landsat imagery, have seen an increased appreciation for the use of long-term data series in predicting a range of forest attributes. As a result, we are seeing a strong movement away from simple indicators of forest growth (e.g. NDVI) towards more complete and analytical radiative transfer solutions, which allow issues such as terrain, atmospheric effects, and sensor degradation to be minimized. In addition, the use of complementary spatial data, such as terrain, climate, and geographical variables, with remotely sensed imagery has been shown to significantly improve attribute prediction either directly or through stratification approaches. Likewise, integration with forest inventory data within forest management systems will also improve long-term prediction of forest growth and other attributes.
The increasing availability of different types of high spatial resolution satellite and airborne imagery has facilitated novel approaches to directly count trees and predict crown attributes, both of which can be used to infer growth rates of key species. Additionally, algorithms designed to detect individual trees from optical and LiDAR data are more commonly capitalizing on pattern recognition and data visualization techniques to help remove some of the ambiguity associated with traditionally exclusively spectral-based classification techniques.
The rapid advancement of LiDAR data has seen the derivation of highly detailed individual tree-level and plot-scale data, consequently revolutionizing forest stand characterization and enhancing our capacity for acquiring biophysical and ecological variables for forest planning and operations [106•]. LiDAR technology and methods are now being implemented in the world’s forests, providing critical information on tree and stand volume, cover, height, and structure. Into the future we may see satellite and other space-based LiDAR missions which will greatly expand the reach and use of LiDAR globally.
Within the next 5 years, ongoing research remains critical to continue to provide forest managers and scientists working in environmental and natural resources fields with timely and accurate estimates of forest productivity. Key challenges include the following.
Continuity with VIIRS
At the broad spatial scale, the MODIS sensor onboard TERRA and AQUA will be nearing the end of their expected lifetime within the next 5 years. The Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) instrument, launched in October 2011 on the Suomi National Polar S-NPP, is designed to provide observation continuity with many of the data products from MODIS. As of 2014, however, there are no plans to produce a number of the forest productivity products focused on biophysical attributes such as LAI or NPP/GPP. More work is required to achieve the stated goal of MODIS data continuity through the use of VIIRS [107], thus ensuring it can provide the types and levels of detail required to meet the needs of the vegetation modellers globally.
Direct Estimation of Forest Growth
As discussed in this review, when trying to predict forest productivity, most studies estimate forest “stock” attributes such as volume and biomass rather than “fluxes” like current and mean annual or periodic growth increment. With the accuracy of LiDAR data, it is now possible to refine these approaches to estimate the increment directly; however, few studies have attempted to do so. For example, a number of potential approaches exist including the use of two spatially registered LiDAR datasets acquired at different points in time; LiDAR data acquired at one time step and photogrammetric stereo matching at a second time step are possible. Each of these options comes with different cost and accuracy considerations [57•].
Recently, there has been an increased interest in the generation of canopy-height models from a combination of high spatial resolution digital aerial photography and LiDAR. Semi-Global Matching (SGM) is an approach that can be used to generate high-density point clouds from a stereo pair of digital images [106•]. As a result, the combination of an initial DEM derived from LiDAR data with a second later acquisition of digital photos may be a cost-effective way to derive changes in forest height and is worthy of additional research. It also offers the capacity to utilize historical aerial photography to derive previous growth rates of forest stands. Considerable research is required to determine the appropriate design of repeat LiDAR surveys for measurement of tree height growth [108–110]. Research is also needed to better understand the amount of time needed for sufficient growth to exceed noise and other uncertainties within LiDAR systems, as well as to better understand the impact of growth increment of different species associations, canopy structure, and site conditions on LiDAR change-in-height metrics.
References
Papers of particular interest have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Valentini R, Matteucci G, Dolman A, SchulzE E-D, Rebmann C, Moors EJ, et al. Respiration as the main determinant of carbon balance in European forests. Nature. 2000;404(6780):861–5.
Goulden ML, Mcmillan AMS, Winston GC, Rocha AV, Manies KL, Harden JW, et al. Patterns of NPP, GPP, respiration, and NEP during boreal forest succession. Glob Chang Biol. 2010;17(2):1–17.
Peters GP, Andrew RM, Boden T, Canadell JG, Ciais P, le Quéré C, et al. The challenge to keep global warming below 2 °C. Nat Clim Chang. 2012;3(1):4–6.
Avery TE, Burkhart HE. Forest management. 1994.
Hyyppä J, Hyyppä H, Inkinen M, Engdahl M, Linko S, Zhu Y. Accuracy comparison of various remote sensing data sources in the retrieval of forest stand attributes. For Ecol Manag. 2000;128:109–20.
Martin M, Newman S, Aber J, Congalton R. Determining forest species composition using high spectral resolution remote sensing data. Remote Sens Environ. 1998;65(3):249–54.
Ustin SL, Xiao QF. Mapping successional boreal forests in interior central Alaska. Int J Remote Sens. 2001;22(6):1779–97.
Hall FG, Hilker T, Coops NC. PHOTOSYNSAT, photosynthesis from space: theoretical foundations of a satellite concept and validation from tower and spaceborne data. Remote Sens Environ. 2011;115:1918–25.
Lutz D, Washington-Allen R. Remote sensing of boreal forest biophysical and inventory parameters: a review. Can J Remote Sens. 2008;34:S286–313.
Hudak AT, Lefsky MA, Cohen WB, Berterretche M. Integration of lidar and Landsat ETM+ data for estimating and mapping forest canopy height. Remote Sens Environ. 2002;82:397–416. This paper provides a good overview and application of fusion methods for LiDAR and optical data.
Austin MP, Nicholls AO, Margules CR. Measurement of the realized qualitative niche: environmental niches of five Eucalyptus species. Ecol Monogr. 1990;60(2):161–77.
Nambiar EKS, Booth TH. Environmental constraints on the productivity of eucalypts and pine: opportunities for site management and breeding, Productivity in Perspective. Melbourne: Proceedings of the Third Australian Forest Soils and Nutrition Conference; 1991. p. 7–11.
Jarvis PG, Leverenz JW. Productivity of temperate, deciduous and evergreen forests. In: Physiological plant ecology IV. Springer. 1983:233–280.
Schönau APG. 7. Problems in using vegetation or soil classification in determining site quality. S Afr For J. 1987;141(1):13–8.
Monteith J. Climate and the efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philos Trans R Soc Lond. 1977;281:277–94. A fundamental paper on relationships between climate and productivity.
Newbould PJ et al. Methods for estimating the primary production of forests. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1967.
Whittaker RH, Marks PL. Methods of assessing terrestrial productivity. In: Primary productivity of the biosphere. Springer; 1975:55–118.
Baldocchi DD. Assessing the eddy covariance technique for evaluating carbon dioxide exchange rates of ecosystems: past, present and future. Glob Chang Biol. 2003;9:479–92.
Cook EA, Iverson LR, Graham RL. Estimating forest productivity with thematic mapper and biogeographical data. Remote Sens Environ. 1989;28:131–41.
Watson DJ. Comparative physiological studies on the growth of field crops. Ann Bot. 1947;11(41):41–76.
Curran PJ, Dungan JL, Gholz HL. Exploring the relationship between reflectance red edge and chlorophyll content in slash pine. Tree Physiol. 1990;7:33–48.
Ustin SL, Smith MO, Jacquemoud S, Verstraete MM, Govaerts Y. Geobotany: Vegetation mapping for earth sciences. In: Remote sensing for the earth sciences: manual of remote sensing, vol. 3. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1999. p. 189–233.
Zarco-Tejada PJ, Miller JR, Mohammed GH, Noland TL. Chlorophyll fluorescence effects on vegetation apparent reflectance: I. Leaf-level measurements and model simulation. Remote Sens Environ. 2000;74:582–95.
Pastor J, Aber JD, McClaugherty CA, Melillo JM. Aboveground production and N and P cycling along a nitrogen mineralization gradient on Blackhawk Island. Wis Ecolo. 1984;65(1):256–68.
Scott NA, Binkley D. Foliage litter quality and annual net N mineralization: across North American forest sites comparison. Oecologia. 1997;111(2):151–9.
Reich PB, Turner DP, Bolstad P. An approach to spatially distributed modeling of net primary production (NPP) at the landscape scale and its application in validation of EOS NPP products. Remote Sens Environ. 1999;70(1):69–81.
Ollinger SV, Smith ML, Martin ME, Hallett RA, Goodale CL, Aber JD. Regional variation in foliar chemistry and N cycling among forests of diverse history and composition. Ecology. 2002;83(2):339–55.
Smith ML, Ollinger S, Martin ME, Aber JD, Hallett RA, Goodale CL. Direct estimation of aboveground forest productivity trough hyperspectral remote sensing of canopy nitrogen. Ecol Appl. 2002;12(5):1286–302.
Curran PJ. Remote sensing of foliar chemistry. Remote Sens Environ. 1989;30:271–8. A pivotal paper on linking image spectroscopy to foliar chemistry.
Running SW, Nemani RR, Heinsch FA, Zhao M, Reeves M, Hashimoto H. A continuous satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. Bioscience. 2004;54(6):547. A good overview of the use of MODIS GPP products over the last decade.
Sellers PJ. Canopy reflectance, photosynthesis and transpiration. Int J Remote Sens. 1985;6(8):1335–72.
Tucker CJ. Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring vegetation. Remote Sens Environ. 1979;8:127–50.
Sellers PJ, Hall FG. FIFE in 1992: results, scientific gains, and future research directions. J Geophys Res. 1992;97(D17):19091–109.
Sellers PJ, Randall DA, Collatz GJ, Berry JA, Field CB, Dazlich DA, et al. A revised land surface parameterization (SiB2) for atmospheric GCMs. Part I: Model Formulation J Clim. 1996;9(4):706–37.
Tucker C, Townshend J, Goff T. African land-cover classification using satellite data. Science. 1985;227(4685):369–75.
Goward SN, Tucker CJ, Dye DG. North American vegetation patterns observed with the NOAA-7 advanced very high resolution radiometer. Vegetatio. 1985;64(1):3–14.
Justice CO, Townshend JRG, Holben BN, Tucker CJ. Analysis of the phenology of global vegetation using meteorological satellite data. Int J Remote Sens. 1985;6(8):1271–318.
Goward SN, Dye D, Kerber A, Kalb V. Comparison of North and South American biomes from AVHRR observations. Geocarto Int. 1987;2(1):27–39.
Box EO, Holben BN, Kalb V. Accuracy of the AVHRR vegetation index as a predictor of biomass, primary productivity and net CO2 flux. Vegetatio. 1989;80(2):71–89.
Heinsch FA, Zhao M, Running SW, Kimball JS, Nemani RR, Davis KJ, et al. Evaluation of remote sensing based terrestrial productivity from MODIS using regional tower eddy flux network observations. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 2006;44(7):1908–25.
Zhao M, Running SW. Drought-induced reduction in global terrestrial net primary production from 2000 through 2009. Science. 2010;329:940–3.
Coops N, Waring R, Landsberg J. Assessing forest productivity in Australia and New Zealand using a physiologically-based model driven with averaged monthly weather data and satellite-derived estimates of canopy photosynthetic capacity. For Ecol Manag. 1998;104:113–27.
Landsberg JJ, Waring RH. A generalised model of forest productivity using simplified concepts of radiation-use efficiency, carbon balance and partitioning. For Ecol Manag. 1997;95:209–28. Paper describing the development and application of a simple forest growth model.
Coops NC, Waring R. Estimating forest productivity in the eastern Siskiyou Mountains of southwestern Oregon using a satellite driven process model, 3-PGS. Can J For Res. 2001;31(1):143–54.
Hall RJ, Morton RT, Nesby RN. A comparison of existing models for DBH estimation from large-scale photos. For Chron. 1989;65(2):114–20.
Titus SJ, Morgan DJ. Tree height: can large scale photo measurements be more accurate than field measurements? For Chronical. 1985:214–217.
Strahler AH, Li X. Spatial/spectral modelling of conifer forest reflectance. Queensland: Proceedings of the 3rd Australian Remote Sensing Conference; 1984. p. 88–90.
Strahler A, Li X. An invertible coniferous forest canopy reflectance model. 15th ed. Ann Arbor: International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment; 1981. p. 1237–44.
Franklin J, Li X, Strahler AH. Canopy reflectance modeling in Sahelian and Sudanian woodland and savannah based on Landsat Thematic Mapper data. In: 20th International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment.; 1987:1273–1281.
Scarth P, Phinn S. Determining forest structural attributes using an inverted geometric-optical model in mixed eucalypt forests, Southeast Queensland. Aust Remote Sens Environ. 2000;71:141–57.
Coggins SB, Coops NC, Hilker T, Wulder MA. Augmenting forest inventory attributes with geometric optical modelling in support of regional susceptibility assessments to bark beetle infestations. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 2013;21:444–52.
Vierling KT, Vierling LA, Gould WA, Martinuzzi S, Clawges RM. Lidar: shedding new light on habitat characterization and modeling. Front Ecol Environ. 2008;6(2):90–8.
Gatziolis D, Andersen HE. A guide to LIDAR data acquisition and processing for the forests of the pacific Northwest. For Sci. 2008;(July):1–40.
Lim K, Treitz P, Wulder MA, St-Onge B, Flood M. LiDAR remote sensing of forest structure. Prog Phys Geogr. 2003;27(1):88–106.
Blair JB, Rabine DL, Hofton MA. The laser vegetation imaging sensor: a medium-altitude, digitisation-only, airborne laser altimeter for mapping vegetation and topography. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 1999;54:115–22.
Schenk T, Seo S, Csathó B. Accuracy study of airborne laser scanning data with photogrammetry. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens. 2001;XXXIV-3/W4:22–4.
Wulder MA, Bater CCW, Coops NC, Hilker T, White JC. The role of LiDAR in sustainable forest management. For Chron. 2008;84(6):807–26. Provides a good overview of the use of LiDAR for forest productivity in Canada and internationally.
Persson A, Holmgren J, Söderman U. Detecting and measuring individual trees using an airborne laser scanner. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens. 2002;68(9):925–32.
Magnussen S, Boudewyn P. Derivations of stand heights from airborne laser scanner data with canopy-based quantile estimators. Can J For Res. 1998;28:1016–31.
Næsset E. Determination of mean tree height of forest stands using airborne laser scanner data. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 1997;52(2):49–56.
Næsset E, Økland T. Estimating tree height and tree crown properties using airborne scanning laser in a boreal nature reserve. Remote Sens Environ. 2002;79:105–15.
Næsset E. Predicting forest stand characteristics with airborne scanning laser using a practical two-stage procedure and field data. Remote Sens Environ. 2002;80(1):88–99. This paper demonstrates the application of LiDAR data for forest inventory applications.
Magnussen S, Eggermont P, LaRiccia VN. Recovering tree heights from airborne laser scanner data. For Sci. 1999;45(3):407–22.
Holmgren P, Thuresson T. Satellite remote sensing for forestry planning—a review. Scand J For Res. 1998;13(1):90–110.
Horler DNH, Ahern FJ. Forestry information content of Thematic Mapper data. Int J Remote Sens. 1986;7(3):405–28.
Trotter CM, Dymond JR, Goulding CJ. Estimation of timber volume in a coniferous plantation forest using Landsat TM. Int J Remote Sens. 1997;18(10):2209–23.
Nelson R, Krabill W, Tonelli J. Estimating forest biomass and volume using airborne laser data. Remote Sens Environ. 1988;24:247–67.
Nilsson M. Estimation of tree heights and stand volume using an airborne lidar system. Remote Sens Environ. 1996;56:1–7.
Popescu SC, Wynne RH, Scrivani JA. Fusion of small-footprint lidar and multispectral data to estimate plot-level volume and biomass in deciduous and pine forests in Virginia. USA For Sci. 2004;50(4):551–65.
Means JE, Acker SA, Fitt BJ, Renslow M, Emerson L, Hendrix CJ. Predicting forest stand characteristics with airborne scanning Lidar. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens. 2000;66(11):1367–71.
Le Toan T, Beaudoin A, Riom J, Guyon D. Relating forest biomass to SAR data. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 1992;30(2):403–11.
Dobson CM, Ulaby FT, LeToan T, Beaudoin A, Kasischke ES, Christensen N. Dependence of radar backscatter on coniferous forest biomass. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 1992;30(2):412–5.
Milne A, Lucas R, Cronin N, Dong Y, Witte C. Forest and woodland biomass and classification using airborne and spaceborne radar data. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens. 2000;XXXIII(Part B7):876–85.
Lucas RM, Cronin N, Lee A, Moghaddam M, Witte C, Tickle P. Empirical relationships between AIRSAR backscatter and LiDAR-derived forest biomass, Queensland. Australia Remote Sens Environ. 2006;100:407–25.
Solberg S, Astrup R, Gobakken T, Næsset E, Weydahl DJ. Estimating spruce and pine biomass with interferometric X-band SAR. Remote Sens Environ. 2010;114(10):2353–60.
Wallace L, Watson C, Lucieer A. Detecting pruning of individual stems using airborne laser scanning data captured from an unmanned aerial vehicle. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 2014;30(1):76–85.
Johansen K, Coops NC, Gergel S, Stange Y. Application of high spatial resolution satellite imagery for riparian and forest ecosystem classification. Remote Sens Environ. 2007;110(1):29–44.
Gougeon F, Leckie DG. Individual tree crown analysis—a step toward precision forestry. In: Precision forestry: finding the context. Proceedings of the first international precision forestry cooperative symposium.; 2001:3–5.
Gougeon FA. A crown-following approach to the automatic delineation of individual tree crowns in high spatial resolution aerial images. Can J Remote Sens. 1995;21(3):274–84.
Culvenor D. TIDA: an algorithm for the delineation of tree crowns in high spatial resolution remotely sensed imagery. Comput Geosci. 2002;28(1):33–44. A good overview and description of an individual tree extraction routine from high resolution imagery.
Yu X, Hyyppä J, Rönnholm P, Kaartinen H, Maltamo M, Hyyppä H. Detection of harvested trees and estimation of forest growth using laser scanning. In: Proceedings of the ScandLaser Scientific Workshop on Airborne Laser Scanning of Forests.; 2003:115–124.
Brandtberg T, Warner TA, Landenberger RE, McGraw JB. Detection and analysis of individual leaf-off tree crowns in small footprint, high sampling density lidar data from the eastern deciduous forest in North America. Remote Sens Environ. 2003;85(3):290–303.
Jakubowski M, Li W, Guo Q, Kelly M. Delineating individual trees from lidar data: a comparison of vector- and raster-based segmentation approaches. Remote Sens. 2013;5(9):4163–86.
Ollinger SV, Smith M-L. Net primary production and canopy nitrogen in a temperate forest landscape: an analysis using imaging spectroscopy, modeling and field data. Ecosystems. 2005;8:760–78.
Hall FG, Shimabukuro YE, Huemmrich KF. Remote sensing of forest biophysical structure using mixture decomposition and geometric reflectance models. Ecol Appl. 1995;5(4):993–1013.
Price JC. Estimating vegetation amount from visible and near infrared reflectances. Remote Sens Environ. 1992;41(1):29–34.
Meroni M, Colombo R, Panigada C. Inversion of a radiative transfer model with hyperspectral observations for LAI mapping in poplar plantations. Remote Sens Environ. 2004;92:195–206.
Gitelson AA, Viña A, Verma SB, Rundquist DC, Arkebauer TJ, Keydan G, et al. Relationship between gross primary production and chlorophyll content in crops: implications for the synoptic monitoring of vegetation productivity. J Geophys Res. 2006;111(8):1–13.
Curran PJ, Windham WR, Gholz HL. Exploring the relationship between reflectance red edge and chlorophyll content in slash pine leaves. Tree Physiol. 1995;3:203–6.
Curran PJ, Dungan JL, Macler BA, Plummer SE. The effect of a red leaf pigment on the relationship between red edge and chlorophyll concentration. Remote Sens Environ. 1991;35:69–76.
Horler DNH, Dockray M, Barber J. The red edge of plant leaf reflectance. Int J Remote Sens. 1983;4(2):273–88.
Datt B. Visible/near infrared reflectance and chlorophyll content in eucalyptus leaves. Int J Remote Sens. 1999;20(14):2741–59.
Barry KM, Stone C, Mohammed CL. Crown-scale evaluation of spectral indices for defoliated and discoloured eucalypts. Int J Remote Sens. 2008;29(1):47–69.
Vigneau N, Ecarnot M, Rabatel G, Roumet P. Potential of field hyperspectral imaging as a non destructive method to assess leaf nitrogen content in wheat. F Crop Res. 2011;122:25–31.
Clevers J, Kooistra L. Using hyperspectral remote sensing data for retrieving canopy chlorophyll and nitrogen content. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens. 2012;5(2):574–83.
Townsend P, Foster J, Chastain RAJ, Currie W. Imaging spectroscopy and canopy nitrogen: application to the forests of the central Appalachian Mountains using Hyperion and AVIRIS. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 2003;41(6):1347–54.
Coops N, Stone C, Culvenor D, Chisholm L, Merton R. Predicting chlorophyll content in eucalypt vegetation at the leaf and canopy level using high spectral resolution imagery. Tree Physiol. 2002;23:23–31.
Coops N, Smith M-L, Martin M, Ollinger S. Prediction of eucalypt foliage nitrogen content from satellite-derived hyperspectral data. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 2003;41(6):1338–46.
Sims DA, Rahman AF, Cordova VD, El-Masri BD, Baldocchi DD, Flanagan LB, et al. On the use of MODIS EVI to assess gross primary productivity of North American ecosystems. J Geophys Res. 2006;111(G4):1–16.
Sims NC, Culvenor D, Newnham G, Coops NC, Hopmans P. Towards the operational use of satellite hyperspectral image data for mapping nutrient status and fertilizer requirements in Australian plantation forests. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens. 2013;6(2):320–8.
Pierce LW, Running SW. Rapid estimation of coniferous forest leaf area index using a portable integrating radiometer. Ecology. 1988;69(6):1762–7.
Gower S. Direct and indirect estimation of leaf area index, fAPAR, and net primary production of terrestrial ecosystems. Remote Sens Environ. 1999;70(1):29–51.
Running SW, Nemani RR, Peterson DL, Band LE, Potts DF, Pierce LL, et al. Mapping regional forest evapotranspiration and photosynthesis by coupling satellite data with ecosystem simulation. Ecology. 1989;70(4):1090–101.
Curran PJ, Dungan JL, Gholz HL. Seasonal LAI in slash pine estimated with Landsat TM. Remote Sens Environ. 1992;39:3–13.
Knyazikhin Y, Martonchik JV, Myneni RB, Diner DJ, Running SW. Synergistic algorithm for estimating vegetation canopy leaf area index and fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation from MODIS and MISR data. J Geophys Res. 1998;103(D24):32257–75.
Vastaranta M, Kankare V, Holopainen M, Yu X, Hyyppä J, Hyyppä H. Combination of individual tree detection and area-based approach in imputation of forest variables using airborne laser data. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 2012;67:73–9. Paper provides good example of how two different approaches of deriving forest inventory attributes can be combined.
Justice CO, Román MO, Csiszar I, Vermote EF, Wolfe RE, Hook SJ, et al. Land and cryosphere products from Suomi NPP VIIRS: overview and status. J Geophys Res Atmos. 2013;118(17):9753–65.
Yu X, Hyyppä J, Kukko A, Maltamo M, Kaartinen H. Change detection techniques for canopy height growth measurements using airborne laser scanner data. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens. 2006;72(12):1339–48.
Næsset E, Nelson R. Using airborne laser scanning to monitor tree migration in the boreal-alpine transition zone. Remote Sens Environ. 2007;110:357–69.
Hopkinson C, Chasmer L, Hall RJ. The uncertainty in conifer plantation growth prediction from multi-temporal lidar datasets. Remote Sens Environ. 2008;112(3):1168–80.
Acknowledgments
Components of this research were funded by a NSERC Discovery grant to Coops. Mitchell Vartainian provided significant editorial help and David Williams for the diagram.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
ᅟ
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article contains no studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Remote Sensing
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Coops, N.C. Characterizing Forest Growth and Productivity Using Remotely Sensed Data. Curr Forestry Rep 1, 195–205 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-015-0020-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-015-0020-x