Decision tree-based machine learning models for above-ground biomass estimation using multi-source remote sensing data and object-based image analysis

References

• Achanta R, Susstrunk S. 2017. Superpixels and polygons using simple non-iterative clustering. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition; p. 4651–4660.
   Google Scholar
• Addink EA, De Jong SM, Pebesma EJ. 2007. The importance of scale in object-based mapping of vegetation parameters with hyperspectral imagery. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens. 73(8):905–912.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Addink E, van Coillie F. 2010. Object-based image analysis. GIM Int. 24(1):12–15.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes EM, Clarke TR, Richards SE, Colaizzi PD, Haberland J, Kostrzewski M, Waller P, Choi C, Riley E, Thompson T. 2000. Coincident detection of crop water stress, nitrogen status and canopy density using ground based multispectral data. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Precision Agriculture, Bloomington, MN, 1619 [place unknown].
   Google Scholar
• Bastin J-F, Berrahmouni N, Grainger A, Maniatis D, Mollicone D, Moore R, Patriarca C, Picard N, Sparrow B, Abraham EM, et al. 2017. The extent of forest in dryland biomes. Science. 356(6338):635–638.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellassen V, Gitz V. 2008. Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation in Cameroon—assessing costs and benefits. Ecol Econ. 68(1–2):336–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berninger A, Lohberger S, Stängel M, Siegert F. 2018. SAR-based estimation of above-ground biomass and its changes in tropical forests of Kalimantan using L-and C-band. Remote Sens. 10(6):831.
   Google Scholar
• Boudreau J, Nelson RF, Margolis HA, Beaudoin A, Guindon L, Kimes DS. 2008. Regional aboveground forest biomass using airborne and spaceborne LiDAR in Québec. Remote Sens Environ. 112(10):3876–3890.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breiman L. 2001. Random forests. Mach Learn. 45(1):5–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breitmeyer BW, Gooden MK, Appleby MJ, Ash R, Rahn J. 2019. Continuous Forest Inventory (CFI), 1970-2017, Long-term Forest Property Monitoring by State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, New York, USA ver 1. Environmental Data Initiative. doi:10.6073/pasta/5f2eb71d634b9ca1ec3c37effa557d33.
   Google Scholar
• Cao L, Pan J, Li R, Li J, Li Z. 2018. Integrating airborne LiDAR and optical data to estimate forest aboveground biomass in arid and semi-arid regions of China. Remote Sens. 10(4):532.
   Google Scholar
• Chave J, Davies SJ, Phillips OL, Lewis SL, Sist P, Schepaschenko D, Armston J, Baker TR, Coomes D, Disney M, et al. 2019. Ground data are essential for biomass remote sensing missions. Surv Geophys. 40(4):863–880.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen T, Guestrin C. 2016. Xgboost: a scalable tree boosting system. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. [place unknown]; p. 785–794.
   Google Scholar
• Chen T, He T, Benesty M, Khotilovich V, Tang Y, Cho H, Chen K, Mitchell R, Cano I, Zhou T, et al. 2021. xgboost: Extreme gradient boosting [Internet]. [place unknown]. [accessed 2021 Nov 29]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=xgboost.
   Google Scholar
• Chen L, Ren C, Zhang B, Wang Z, Xi Y. 2018. Estimation of forest above-ground biomass by geographically weighted regression and machine learning with Sentinel imagery. Forests. 9(10):582.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clough BJ, Domke GM, MacFarlane DW, Radtke PJ, Russell MB, Weiskittel AR. 2018. Testing a new component ratio method for predicting total tree aboveground and component biomass for widespread pine and hardwood species of eastern US. For Int J for Res. 91(5):575–588.
   Google Scholar
• Coates PS, Gustafson KB, Roth CL, Chenaille MP, Ricca MA, Mauch K, Sanchez-Chopitea E, Kroger TJ, Perry WM, Casazza ML. 2017. Using object-based image analysis to conduct high-resolution conifer extraction at regional spatial scales. Amsterdam (Netherlands): US Geological Survey.
   Google Scholar
• Coops NC, Tompalski P, Goodbody TR, Queinnec M, Luther JE, Bolton DK, White JC, Wulder MA, van Lier OR, Hermosilla T. 2021. Modelling lidar-derived estimates of forest attributes over space and time: A review of approaches and future trends. Remote Sens Environ. 260:112477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler FobLaA, Wiener RpbAaM. 2018. randomForest: Breiman and Cutler’s Random Forests for Classification and Regression [Internet]. [accessed 2021 Nov 29]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=randomForest.
   Google Scholar
• Cutler MEJ, Boyd DS, Foody GM, Vetrivel A. 2012. Estimating tropical forest biomass with a combination of SAR image texture and Landsat TM data: An assessment of predictions between regions. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 70:66–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly C, Halbleib M, Smith JI, Gibson WP, Doggett MK, Taylor GH, Curtis J, Pasteris PP. 2008. Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. Int J Climatol. 28(15):2031–2064.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly C, Slater ME, Roberti JA, Laseter SH, Swift LW. 2017. High-resolution precipitation mapping in a mountainous watershed: ground truth for evaluating uncertainty in a national precipitation dataset. Int J Climatol. 37:124–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dang ATN, Nandy S, Srinet R, Luong NV, Ghosh S, Kumar AS. 2019. Forest aboveground biomass estimation using machine learning regression algorithm in Yok Don National Park, Vietnam. Ecol Inform. 50:24–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donoghue DN, Watt PJ, Cox NJ, Wilson J. 2007. Remote sensing of species mixtures in conifer plantations using LiDAR height and intensity data. Remote Sens Environ. 110(4):509–522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dube T, Mutanga O, Shoko C, Adelabu S, Bangira T. 2016. Remote sensing of aboveground forest biomass: A review. Trop Ecol. 57:125–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncanson L, Neuenschwander A, Hancock S, Thomas N, Fatoyinbo T, Simard M, Silva CA, Armston J, Luthcke SB, Hofton M, et al. 2020. Biomass estimation from simulated GEDI, ICESat-2 and NISAR across environmental gradients in Sonoma County, California. Remote Sens Environ. 242:111779.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. 2017. Sentinel [Internet]. [accessed 2021 Nov 29].
   Google Scholar
• Eckert S. 2012. Improved forest biomass and carbon estimations using texture measures from WorldView-2 satellite data. Remote Sens. 4(4):810–829.
   Google Scholar
• ee.Image.glcmTexture | Google Earth Engine. 2020. Google Dev [Internet]. [accessed 2021 Nov 30]. https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/apidocs/ee-image-glcmtexture.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. 2000. Additive logistic regression: a statistical view of boosting (with discussion and a rejoinder by the authors). Ann Stat. 28(2):337–407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García M, Riaño D, Chuvieco E, Danson FM. 2010. Estimating biomass carbon stocks for a Mediterranean forest in central Spain using LiDAR height and intensity data. Remote Sens Environ. 114(4):816–830.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gitelson AA, Gritz Y, Merzlyak MN. 2003. Relationships between leaf chlorophyll content and spectral reflectance and algorithms for non-destructive chlorophyll assessment in higher plant leaves. J Plant Physiol. 160(3):271–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gitelson AA, Kaufman YJ, Stark R, Rundquist D. 2002. Novel algorithms for remote estimation of vegetation fraction. Remote Sens Environ. 80(1):76–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gitelson AA. 2004. Wide dynamic range vegetation index for remote quantification of biophysical characteristics of vegetation. J Plant Physiol. 161(2):165–173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleason CJ, Im J. 2012. Forest biomass estimation from airborne LiDAR data using machine learning approaches. Remote Sens Environ. 125:80–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorelick N, Hancher M, Dixon M, Ilyushchenko S, Thau D, Moore R. 2017. Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens Environ. 202:18–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwell B, Boehmke B, Cunningham J. 2020. Developers (https://github.com/gbm-developers) GBM. gbm: Generalized Boosted Regression Models [Internet]. [place unknown]. [accessed 2021 Nov 29]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gbm.
   Google Scholar
• Hajj ME, Baghdadi N, Fayad I, Vieilledent G, Bailly J-S, Minh DHT. 2017. Interest of integrating spaceborne LiDAR data to improve the estimation of biomass in high biomass forested areas. Remote Sens. 9(3):213.
   Google Scholar
• Hangs RD, Van Rees KCJ, Schoenau JJ, Guo X. 2011. A simple technique for estimating above-ground biomass in short-rotation willow plantations. Biomass Bioenergy. 35(5):2156–2162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haralick RM. 1979. Statistical and structural approaches to texture. Proc IEEE. 67(5):786–804.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawbaker TJ, Keuler NS, Lesak AA, Gobakken T, Contrucci K, Radeloff VC. 2009. Improved estimates of forest vegetation structure and biomass with a LiDAR-optimized sampling design. J Geophys Res Biogeosciences. 114(G2).
   Google Scholar
• Hemati M, Hasanlou M, Mahdianpari M, Mohammadimanesh F. 2021. A systematic review of landsat data for change detection applications: 50 years of monitoring the earth. Remote Sens. 13(15):2869.
   Google Scholar
• Hirata Y, Furuya N, Saito H, Pak C, Leng C, Sokh H, Ma V, Kajisa T, Ota T, Mizoue N. 2018. Object-based mapping of aboveground biomass in tropical forests using LiDAR and very-high-spatial-resolution satellite data. Remote Sens. 10(3):438.
   Google Scholar
• Ho TK. 1995. Random decision forests. In Proceedings of 3rd international conference on document analysis and recognition (Vol. 1). IEEE; p. 278–282.
   Google Scholar
• Hu T, Su Y, Xue B, Liu J, Zhao X, Fang J, Guo Q. 2016. Mapping global forest aboveground biomass with spaceborne LiDAR, optical imagery, and forest inventory data. Remote Sens. 8(7):565.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang J, Zhang X, Xin Q, Sun Y, Zhang P. 2019. Automatic building extraction from high-resolution aerial images and LiDAR data using gated residual refinement network. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 151:91–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang W, Dolan K, Swatantran A, Johnson K, Tang H, O’Neil-Dunne J, Dubayah R, Hurtt G. 2019. High-resolution mapping of aboveground biomass for forest carbon monitoring system in the Tri-State region of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Delaware, USA. Environ Res Lett. 14(9):095002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudak AT, Fekety PA, Kane VR, Kennedy RE, Filippelli SK, Falkowski MJ, Tinkham WT, Smith AMS, Crookston NL, Domke GM, et al. 2020. A carbon monitoring system for mapping regional, annual aboveground biomass across the northwestern USA. Environ Res Lett. 15(9):095003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huete AR. 1988. A soil-adjusted vegetation index (SAVI). Remote Sens Environ. 25(3):295–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyde P, Nelson R, Kimes D, Levine E. 2007. Exploring LiDAR–RaDAR synergy—predicting aboveground biomass in a southwestern ponderosa pine forest using LiDAR, SAR and InSAR. Remote Sens Environ. 106(1):28–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Issa S, Dahy B, Ksiksi T, Saleous N. 2020. A Review of Terrestrial Carbon Assessment Methods Using Geo-Spatial Technologies with Emphasis on Arid Lands. Remote Sens. 12(12):2008.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson RB, Randerson JT, Canadell JG, Anderson RG, Avissar R, Baldocchi DD, Bonan GB, Caldeira K, Diffenbaugh NS, Field CB, et al. 2008. Protecting climate with forests. Environ Res Lett. 3(4):044006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson BA, Ma L. 2020. Image segmentation and object-based image analysis for environmental monitoring: Recent areas of interest, researchers’ views on the future priorities. Remote Sens. 12(11):1772.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan CF. 1969. Derivation of leaf-area index from quality of light on the forest floor. Ecology. 50(4):663–666.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshi N, Mitchard ET, Brolly M, Schumacher J, Fernández-Landa A, Johannsen VK, Marchamalo M, Fensholt R. 2017. Understanding ‘saturation’of radar signals over forests. Sci Rep. 7(1):1–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jucker T, Caspersen J, Chave J, Antin C, Barbier N, Bongers F, Dalponte M, van Ewijk KY, Forrester DI, Haeni M, et al. 2017. Allometric equations for integrating remote sensing imagery into forest monitoring programmes. Glob Chang Biol. 23(1):177–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlson M, Ostwald M, Reese H, Sanou J, Tankoano B, Mattsson E. 2015. Mapping tree canopy cover and aboveground biomass in Sudano-Sahelian woodlands using Landsat 8 and random forest. Remote Sens. 7(8):10017–10041.
   Google Scholar
• Kelsey KC, Neff JC. 2014. Estimates of aboveground biomass from texture analysis of Landsat imagery. Remote Sens. 6(7):6407–6422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy RE, Yang Z, Gorelick N, Braaten J, Cavalcante L, Cohen WB, Healey S. 2018. Implementation of the LandTrendr algorithm on google earth engine. Remote Sens. 10(5):691.
   Google Scholar
• Lee J-S, Grunes MR, De Grandi G. 1999. Polarimetric SAR speckle filtering and its implication for classification. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 37(5):2363–2373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee J-S, Pottier E. 2009. Polarimetric radar imaging: from basics to applications. Florida: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Li C, Li M, Li Y. 2020. Improving estimation of forest aboveground biomass using Landsat 8 imagery by incorporating forest crown density as a dummy variable. Can J Res. 50(4):390–398.
   Google Scholar
• Li S, Quackenbush LJ, Im J. 2019. Airborne lidar sampling strategies to enhance forest aboveground biomass estimation from landsat imagery. Remote Sens. 11(16):1906.
   Google Scholar
• Li Y, Li C, Li M, Liu Z. 2019. Influence of variable selection and forest type on forest aboveground biomass estimation using machine learning algorithms. Forests. 10(12):1073.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Li M, Li C, Liu Z. 2020. Forest aboveground biomass estimation using Landsat 8 and Sentinel-1A data with machine learning algorithms. Sci Rep. 10(1):1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Li M, Liu Z, Li C. 2020. Combining Kriging interpolation to improve the accuracy of forest aboveground biomass estimation using remote sensing data. IEEE Access. 8:128124–128139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louhaichi M, Borman MM, Johnson DE. 2001. Spatially located platform and aerial photography for documentation of grazing impacts on wheat. Geocarto Int. 16(1):65–70.
   Google Scholar
• Lu D, Batistella M. 2005. Exploring TM image texture and its relationships with biomass estimation in Rondônia, Brazilian Amazon. Acta Amaz. 35(2):249–257.
   Google Scholar
• Mahdianpari M, Salehi B, Mohammadimanesh F, Homayouni S, Gill E. 2018. The first wetland inventory map of newfoundland at a spatial resolution of 10 m using sentinel-1 and sentinel-2 data on the google earth engine cloud computing platform. Remote Sens. 11(1):43.
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney MJ, Beier CM, Ackerman AC. 2022. terrainr: An R package for creating immersive virtual environments. JOSS. 7(69):4060.
   Google Scholar
• Malhi Y, Meir P, Brown S. 2002. Forests, carbon and global climate. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 360(1797):1567–1591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchard ETA, Saatchi SS, White LJT, Abernethy KA, Jeffery KJ, Lewis SL, Collins M, Lefsky MA, Leal ME, Woodhouse IH, et al. 2012. Mapping tropical forest biomass with radar and spaceborne LiDAR in Lopé National Park, Gabon: overcoming problems of high biomass and persistent cloud. Biogeosciences. 9(1):179–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutanga O, Adam E, Cho MA. 2012. High density biomass estimation for wetland vegetation using WorldView-2 imagery and random forest regression algorithm. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinformation. 18:399–406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naesset E. 2011. Estimating above-ground biomass in young forests with airborne laser scanning. Int J Remote Sens. 32(2):473–501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson R. 2013. How did we get here? An early history of forestry lidar1. Can J Remote Sens. 39(sup1):S6–S17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NYS Elevation Data. 2014. [accessed 2021 Nov 29]. http://gis.ny.gov/elevation/.
   Google Scholar
• Pan B. 2018. Application of XGBoost algorithm in hourly PM2. 5 concentration prediction. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci. 113:012127.
   Google Scholar
• Pesantez-Narvaez J, Guillen M, Alcañiz M. 2019. Predicting motor insurance claims using telematics data—XGBoost versus logistic regression. Risks. 7(2):70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pflugmacher D, Cohen WB, Kennedy RE, Yang Z. 2014. Using Landsat-derived disturbance and recovery history and lidar to map forest biomass dynamics. Remote Sens Environ. 151:124–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pflugmacher D, Cohen WB, Kennedy RE. 2012. Using Landsat-derived disturbance history (1972–2010) to predict current forest structure. Remote Sens Environ. 122:146–165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pham TD, Le NN, Ha NT, Nguyen LV, Xia J, Yokoya N, To TT, Trinh HX, Kieu LQ, Takeuchi W. 2020. Estimating Mangrove above-ground biomass using extreme gradient boosting decision trees algorithm with fused Sentinel-2 and ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 data in can gio biosphere reserve, Vietnam. Remote Sens. 12(5):777.
   Google Scholar
• Popescu SC, Zhao K, Neuenschwander A, Lin C. 2011. Satellite lidar vs. small footprint airborne lidar: comparing the accuracy of aboveground biomass estimates and forest structure metrics at footprint level. Remote Sens Environ. 115(11):2786–2797.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravindranath NH, Ostwald M. 2007. Carbon inventory methods: handbook for greenhouse gas inventory, carbon mitigation and roundwood production projects. Berlin (Germany): Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Rouse JW, Haas RH, Schell JA, Deering DW. 1974. Monitoring vegetation systems in the Great Plains with ERTS. NASA Spec Publ. 351(1974):309.
   Google Scholar
• Saatchi S. 2019. SAR methods for mapping and monitoring forest biomass. In: Flores A, Herndon K, Thapa R, Cherrington E, editors. SAR handbook: comprehensive methodologies for forest monitoring and biomass estimation. Alabama, USA: SERVIR Global; p. 207–246.
   Google Scholar
• Saatchi SS, Moghaddam M. 2000. Estimation of crown and stem water content and biomass of boreal forest using polarimetric SAR imagery. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 38(2):697–709.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salehi B, Daneshfar B, Davidson AM. 2017. Accurate crop-type classification using multi-temporal optical and multi-polarization SAR data in an object-based image analysis framework. Int J Remote Sens. 38(14):4130–4155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salehi B, Zhang Y, Zhong M, Dey V. 2012. Object-based classification of urban areas using VHR imagery and height points ancillary data. Remote Sens. 4(8):2256–2276.
   Google Scholar
• Salehi B, Zhang Y, Zhong M. 2013. A combined object-and pixel-based image analysis framework for urban land cover classification of VHR imagery. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens. 79(11):999–1014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Services. n.d. [accessed 2021 Nov 29]. https://apps.nationalmap.gov/services/.
   Google Scholar
• Shao Z, Zhang L, Wang L. 2017. Stacked sparse autoencoder modeling using the synergy of airborne LiDAR and satellite optical and SAR data to map forest above-ground biomass. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Observations Remote Sensing. 10(12):5569–5582.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shao Z, Zhang L. 2016. Estimating forest aboveground biomass by combining optical and SAR data: a case study in Genhe, Inner Mongolia, China. Sensors. 16(6):834.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silveira EM, Silva SHG, Acerbi-Junior FW, Carvalho MC, Carvalho LMT, Scolforo JRS, Wulder MA. 2019. Object-based random forest modelling of aboveground forest biomass outperforms a pixel-based approach in a heterogeneous and mountain tropical environment. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinform. 78:175–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh KK, Vogler JB, Shoemaker DA, Meentemeyer RK. 2012. LiDAR-Landsat data fusion for large-area assessment of urban land cover: Balancing spatial resolution, data volume and mapping accuracy. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 74:110–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sörensen R, Zinko U, Seibert J. 2006. On the calculation of the topographic wetness index: evaluation of different methods based on field observations. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 10(1):101–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steininger MK. 2000. Satellite estimation of tropical secondary forest above-ground biomass: data from Brazil and Bolivia. Int J Remote Sens. 21(6-7):1139–1157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• St-Onge B, Hu Y, Vega C. 2008. Mapping the height and above-ground biomass of a mixed forest using lidar and stereo Ikonos images. Int J Remote Sens. 29(5):1277–1294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamiminia H, Salehi B, Mahdianpari M, Quackenbush L, Adeli S, Brisco B. 2020. Google Earth Engine for geo-big data applications: A meta-analysis and systematic review. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 164:152–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tassi A, Vizzari M. 2020. Object-oriented LULC classification in google earth engine combining SNIC, GLCM, and machine learning algorithms. Remote Sens. 12(22):3776.
   Google Scholar
• Tucker CJ. 1979. Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring vegetation. Remote Sens Environ. 8(2):127–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urbazaev M, Thiel C, Cremer F, Dubayah R, Migliavacca M, Reichstein M, Schmullius C. 2018. Estimation of forest aboveground biomass and uncertainties by integration of field measurements, airborne LiDAR, and SAR and optical satellite data in Mexico. Carbon Balance Manag. 13(1):1–20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vincini M, Frazzi E, D’Alessio P. 2008. A broad-band leaf chlorophyll vegetation index at the canopy scale. Precision Agric. 9(5):303–319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woebbecke DM, Meyer GE, Von Bargen K, Mortensen DA. 1995. Color indices for weed identification under various soil, residue, and lighting conditions. Trans ASAE. 38(1):259–269.
   Google Scholar
• Woodall CW, Heath LS, Domke GM, Nichols MC. 2011. Methods and equations for estimating aboveground volume, biomass, and carbon for trees in the US Forest Inventory, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Wulder MA, Coops NC, Hudak AT, Morsdorf F, Nelson R, Newnham G, Vastaranta M. 2013. Status and prospects for LiDAR remote sensing of forested ecosystems. Can J Remote Sens. 39(sup1):S1–S5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yue J, Yang G, Tian Q, Feng H, Xu K, Zhou C. 2019. Estimate of winter-wheat above-ground biomass based on UAV ultrahigh-ground-resolution image textures and vegetation indices. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 150:226–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang C, Denka S, Cooper H, Mishra DR. 2018. Quantification of sawgrass marsh aboveground biomass in the coastal Everglades using object-based ensemble analysis and Landsat data. Remote Sens Environ. 204:366–379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang R, Zhou X, Ouyang Z, Avitabile V, Qi J, Chen J, Giannico V. 2019. Estimating aboveground biomass in subtropical forests of China by integrating multisource remote sensing and ground data. Remote Sens Environ. 232:111341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou X, Zhu X, Dong Z, Guo W. 2016. Estimation of biomass in wheat using random forest regression algorithm and remote sensing data. Crop J. 4(3):212–219.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu Y, Feng Z, Lu J, Liu J. 2020. Estimation of forest biomass in Beijing (China) using multisource remote sensing and forest inventory data. Forests. 11(2):163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar