Assessing airborne laser scanning and spectral data for species-specific retention tree information

Abstract

Key differences in biological legacy exist between clear-cutting and natural disturbances. One way to enhance similarity is by preserving structural features of old forests, such as retention trees, within harvested areas. Norwegian forest certification standards set by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) require both the preservation and mapping of retention trees within harvested area for eventual reporting in a central database. This study, conducted in a managed forest in southeast Norway, evaluates the accuracy of retention tree identification, including density and volume predictions, using airborne laser scanning (ALS) data with low (2 pulses m^–2) and high (approximately 100 pulses m^–2) pulse densities, with and without spectral data. We also assess whether ex-situ reference data, such as diameter–height measurements from sample plots in similar forests or species annotations from aerial images, can fully or partially replace in-situ data collected within harvested stands.Three reference datasets were used, fully or partially: (1) 630 in-situ retention trees across 27 stands (for species classification and diameter at breast height (DBH) prediction), (2) 1064 ex-situ sample trees (for DBH prediction), and (3) 150 ex-situ annotated segments (for species classification). Using an individual tree segmentation approach with adaptative local maxima window size and regeneration height filtering, 65% of the in-situ retention trees were correctly identified, increasing to 74% when excluding snags. ALS at 2 pulses m^–2 alone provided reliable total density and volume predictions, while spectral data improved species-specific accuracy. Species classifications remained consistent across data source (kappa=0.556 for in-situ retention trees, 0.519 for ex-situ annotated segments), but DBH were underpredicted with ex-situ sample trees (RMSE=9.4 cm, MSD=−4.6 cm) compared to using 40 in-situ retention trees (RMSE=8.8 cm, MSD=0.2 cm). We recommend sampling approximately 40 in-situ retention trees to calibrate diameter-height models and using ex-situ annotated segments for species classification. This approach, based on low-density ALS and orthophoto datasets, meets the PEFC requirement to provide the locations of retention trees and may also support retrospective detection, thereby contributing to semi-automated certification reporting and virtual audits. In the eventuality of a publicly accessible database of measured retention trees were available, in-situ sampling for diameter-height model calibration could be omitted.

Keywords

Airborne laser scanning / Ex-situ / In-situ / Retention trees / Spectral data

References

[1] Ayrey E, Fraver S, Kershaw JJA, Kenefi LS, Hayes D, Weiskittel AR, Roth BE. Layer stacking: a novel algorithm for individual forest tree segmentation from LiDAR point clouds. Can J Remote Sens, 2017, 43(1): 16-27

[2] Bollandsås OM, Eid TH, Hansen EAA. Systematic and random errors of height measurements of individual trees using Vertex hypsometer. MINA Fagrapport, 2023, 87: 23

[3] Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn, 2001, 45: 5-32

[4] Dalponte M, Coomes DA. Tree-centric mapping of forest carbon density from airborne laser scanning and hyperspectral data. Methods Ecol Evol, 2016, 7(10): 1236-1245

[5] Esseen P-A, Ehnström B, Ericson L, Sjöberg K. Boreal Forests. Ecol Bull, 1997, 46: 16-47

[6] Fedrowitz K, Koricheva J, Baker SC, Lindenmayer DB, Palik B, Rosenvald R, Beese W, Franklin JF, Kouki J, Macdonald E, Messier C, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Gustafsson L. Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity A meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol, 2014, 51(6): 1669-1679

[7] Finland PEFC. Sustainable forest management-Requirements. PEFC FI, 2024, 1002(2024): 65

[8] FSC Finland (2023) The FSC Forest Stewardship - Standard for Finland. FSC-STD-FIN-02–202, p 115.

[9] Franklin JF, Berg DR, Thornburgh DA, Tappeiner JC. Kohm KA, Franklin JF. Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: variable retention harvest systems. Creating a forestry for the 21st century: the science of ecosystem management, 1997, Washington, Island Press

[10] Gatziolis D. Dynamic range-based intensity normalization for airborne, discrete return lidar data of forest canopies. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens, 2011, 773251-259

[11] Gustafsson L, Baker SC, Bauhus J, Beese WJ, Brodie A, Kouki J, Lindenmayer DB, Lõhmus A, Pastur GM, Messier C, Neyland M, Palik B, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Volney WJA, Wayne A, Franklin JF. Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: a world perspective. Bioscience, 2012, 62(7): 633-645

[12] Hansen E, Rahlf J, Astrup R, Gobakken T. Taper, volume, and bark thickness models for spruce, pine, and birch in Norway. Scand J for Res, 2023, 38(6): 413-428

[13] Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein IH. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern, 1973, 6: 610-621

[14] Hardenbol AA, Korhonen L, Kukkonen M, Maltamo M. Detection of standing retention trees in boreal forests with airborne laser scanning point clouds and multispectral imagery. Methods Ecol Evol, 2023, 14(7): 1610-1622

[15] Heinaro E, Tanhuanpää T, Kukko A, Hakala T, Holopainen M. Comparing field measurements and annotations as training data for UAV-based detection of standing dead trees in coniferous forest. Int J Remote Sens, 2023, 44(17): 5375-5396

[16] Hyyppä J, Inkinen M. Detecting and estimating attributes for single trees using laser scanner. Photogramm J Finl, 1999, 16: 27-42

[17] Jutras-Perreault M-C, Gobakken T, Næsset E, Ørka HO. Comparison of different remotely sensed data sources for detection of presence of standing dead trees using a tree-based approach. Remote Sens, 2023, 15(9): 2223

[18] Jutras-Perreault M-C, Næsset E, Gobakken T, Ørka HO. Detecting the presence of standing dead trees using airborne laser scanning and optical data. Scand J for Res, 2023, 384208-220

[19] Kaartinen H, Hyyppä J, Yu X, Vastaranta M, Hyyppä H, Kukko A, Holopainen M, Heipke C, Hirschmugl M, Morsdorf F, Næsset E, Pitkänen J, Popescu S, Solberg S, Wolf BM, Wu JC. An international comparison of individual tree detection and extraction using airborne laser scanning. Remote Sens, 2012, 4(4): 950-974

[20] Kennedy RE, Yang Z, Cohen WB. Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 1. LandTrendr - temporal segmentation algorithms. Remote Sens Environ, 2010, 114: 2897-2910

[21] Korhonen L, Salas C, Østgård T, Lien V, Gobakken T, Næsset E. Predicting the occurrence of large-diameter trees using airborne laser scanning. Can J for Res, 2016, 46(4): 461-469

[22] Korpela I, Ørka HO, Hyyppä J, Heikkinen V, Tokola T. Range and AGC normalization in airborne discrete-return LiDAR intensity data for forest canopies. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens, 2010, 65(4): 369-379

[23] Korpela I, Ørka HO, Maltamo M, Tokola T, Hyyppä J. Tree species classification using airborne LiDAR - effects of stand and tree parameters, downsizing of training set, intensity normalization, and sensor type. Silva Fenn, 2010, 44(2): 319-339

[24] Kouki J, Arnold K, Martikainen P. Long-term persistence of aspen–a key host for many threatened species–is endangered in old-growth conservation areas in Finland. J Nat Conserv, 2004, 12(1): 41-52

[25] Kozak A. A variable-exponent taper equation. Can J for Res, 1988, 18(11): 1363-1368

[26] Maltamo M, Kallio E, Bollandsås OM, Næsset E, Gobakken T, Pesonen A. Maltamo M, Næsset E, Vauhkonen J. Assessing Dead Wood by Airborne Laser Scanning. Forestry Applications of Airborne Laser Scanning, 2014, Dordrecht, Springer375395

[27] Martinuzzi S, Vierling LA, Gould WA, Falkowski MJ, Evans JS, Hudak AT, Vierling KT. Mapping snags and understory shrubs for a LiDAR-based assessment of wildlife habitat suitability. Remote Sens Environ, 2009, 113(12): 2533-2546

[28] McRae D, Duchesne L, Freedman B, Lynham T, Woodley S. Comparisons between wildfire and forest harvesting and their implications in forest management. Environ Rev, 2001, 9(4): 223-260

[29] 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

[30] Næsset E. Estimating timber volume of forest stands using airborne laser scanner data. Remote Sens Environ, 1997, 61(2): 246-253

[31] Næsset E. Practical large-scale forest stand inventory using a small-footprint airborne scanning laser. Scand J for Res, 2004, 19(2): 164-179

[32] Näslund M (1936) Skogsförsöksanstaltens gallringsförsök i tallskog (Forest research institute’s thinning experiment in Scots pine forests) 29. Meddelanden från Statens Skogsförsöksanstalt (Announcement from the Swedish Forest Research Institute), Stockholm, p 169.

[33] Noordermeer L, Sørngård E, Astrup R, NæssetnE GT. Coupling a differential global navigation satellite system to a cut-to-length harvester operating system enables precise positioning of harvested trees. Int J for Eng, 2021, 32: 119-127

[34] Norway PEFC. Norwegian PEFC Forest Standard. PEFC N, 2022, 02(2022): 45

[35] FSC Norway (2023) The FSC Forest Stewardship Standard for Norway. FSC-STD-NOR-01–2023 EN, p 135.

[36] Ørka HO, Næsset E, Bollandsås OM. Classifying species of individual trees by intensity and structure features derived from airborne laser scanner data. Remote Sens Environ, 2009, 11361163-1174

[37] Packalén P. Using airborne laser scanning data and digital aerial photographs to estimate growing stock by tree species. Dissertation, 2009University of Joensuu

[38] Palmroos I, Norros V, Keski-Saari S, Mäyrä J, Tanhuanpää T, Kivinen S, Pykälä J, Kullberg P, Kumpula T, Vihervaara P. Remote sensing in mapping biodiversity—a case study of epiphytic lichen communities. For Ecol Manag, 2023, 538: 120993

[39] Persson Å, Holmgren J, Söderman U, Olsson H. Tree species classification of individual trees in Sweden by combining high resolution laser data with high resolution near-infrared digital images. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci, 2004, 36(8): 204-207

[40] Säynäjoki R, Packalén P, Maltamo M, Vehmas M, Eerikäinen K. Detection of aspens using high resolution aerial laser scanning data and digital aerial images. Sens, 2008, 8: 5037-5054

[41] Schardt M, Ziegler M, Wimmer A, Wack R, Hyyppa J. Assessment of forest parameters by means of laser scanning. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci, 2002, 34(3/A): 302-309

[42] Solberg S, Naesset E, Bollandsas OM. Single tree segmentation using airborne laser scanner data in a structurally heterogeneous spruce forest. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens, 2006, 72(12): 1369-1378

[43] Steinset TA. Norsk skoghåndbok 2000 (Norwegian Forest Handbook), 1999, Oslo, Landbruksforlaget (The Agriculture Publishing House)312

[44] Toivonen J, Kangas A, Maltamo M, Kukkonen M, Packalen P. Mapping large European aspen (Populus tremula L.) in Finland using airborne lidar and image data. Can J for Res, 2024, 54(7): 762-773

[45] Tompalski P, Coops NC, White JC, Wulder MA. Simulating the impacts of error in species and height upon tree volume derived from airborne laser scanning data. For Ecol Manag, 2014, 327: 167-177

[46] Tveite B. Bonitetskurver for gran: Site-index curves for Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst), 1977, Ås, Norsk institutt for skogforskning

[47] Vauhkonen J, Tokola T, Maltamo M, Packalén P. Effects of pulse density on predicting characteristics of individual trees of Scandinavian commercial species using alpha shape metrics based on airborne laser scanning data. Can J Remote Sens, 2008, 34(sup2): S441-S459

[48] Wing BM, Ritchie MW, Boston K, Cohen WB, Olsen MJ. Individual snag detection using neighborhood attribute filtered airborne lidar data. Remote Sens Environ, 2015, 163: 165-179

[49] Zlonis EJ, Deo R, Berdeen JB. LiDAR and multispectral imagery predict the occurrence of tree cavities suitable for a cavity-nesting duck. Remote Sens Ecol Conserv, 2022, 8(2): 191-207

Funding

Norwegian University of Life Sciences

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s)