Filtering ground noise from LiDAR returns produces inferior models of
forest aboveground biomass
Abstract
Airborne LiDAR has become an essential data source for large-scale,
high-resolution modeling of forest biomass and carbon stocks, enabling
predictions with much higher resolution and accuracy than can be
achieved using optical imagery alone. Ground noise filtering – that is,
excluding returns from LiDAR point clouds based on simple height
thresholds – is a common practice meant to improve the ‘signal’ content
of LiDAR returns by preventing ground returns from masking useful
information about tree size and condition contained within canopy
returns. Although this procedure originated in LiDAR-based estimation of
mean tree and canopy height, ground noise filtering has remained
prevalent in LiDAR pre-processing, even as modelers have shifted focus
to forest aboveground biomass (AGB) and related characteristics for
which ground returns may actually contain useful information about stand
density and openness. In particular, ground returns may be helpful for
making accurate biomass predictions in heterogeneous landscapes that
include a patchy mosaic of vegetation heights and land cover types. We
applied several ground noise filtering thresholds while mapping two
regions within New York State, one a forest-dominated area and the other
a mixed-use landscape. We observed that removing ground noise via any
height threshold systematically biases many of the LiDAR-derived
variables used in AGB modeling. By fitting random forest models to each
of these predictor sets, we found that that ground noise filtering
yields models of forest AGB with lower accuracy than models trained
using predictors derived from unfiltered point clouds. The relative
inferiority of AGB models based on filtered LiDAR returns was much
greater for the mixed land-cover study area than for the contiguously
forested study area. Our results suggest that ground filtering should be
avoided when mapping biomass, particularly when mapping heterogeneous
and highly patchy landscapes, as ground returns are more likely to
represent useful ‘signal’ than extraneous ‘noise’ in these cases.