TY - JOUR
T1 - A quantitative evaluation of forest aboveground biomass density map products in Oregon, USA
AU - Hudak, Andrew T.
AU - Bakken, Jennifer L.
AU - Lister, Andrew
AU - Mauro, Francisco
AU - Gregory, Matthew J.
AU - Riley, Karin
AU - Wilson, Barry
AU - Santoro, Maurizio
AU - Healey, Sean
AU - Ma, Lei
AU - Yu, Yifan
AU - Bright, Benjamin C.
AU - Byrne, John
AU - Mita, Roy
AU - Houtman, Rachel M.
AU - Shaw, John D.
AU - Fekety, Patrick A.
AU - Domke, Grant
AU - Walters, Brian
AU - Bell, David M.
AU - Weiskittel, Aaron
AU - Atkins, Jeff W.
AU - Duncanson, Laura
AU - Hunka, Neha
AU - Kennedy, Robert
AU - Babcock, Chad
AU - Saatchi, Sassan
AU - Raczka, Brett
AU - Silva, Carlos
AU - Tang, Hao
AU - Hurtt, George
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2026 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd. Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
PY - 2026/7
Y1 - 2026/7
N2 - Maps of aboveground biomass density (AGBD) estimated from remote sensing data with models trained from inventory data are essential for carbon monitoring. Forest inventory plots in the United States (US) are measured by the forest inventory and analysis (FIA) program of the US Forest Service (USFS). These plots are spatially representative, design unbiased, and provide estimates of AGBD and other forest attributes over large spatial domains, but do not provide spatially continuous or sufficiently precise estimates over small spatial domains (e.g. forest stands). Integration with remote sensing can fill this gap, but remote sensing cannot measure AGBD directly, so models predicting ground-measured AGBD as a function of remote sensing data are often used to generate maps. We evaluated 10 alternative types of AGBD maps that used LiDAR, multispectral satellite (Landsat) image time series, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), or alternative modeling approaches. We evaluated the agreement between mapped AGBD predictions and AGBD observations collected at the FIA plots or in stands surveyed on USFS lands. Ground observations were regressed on mapped AGBD predictions at different spatial aggregation levels: county, 64 000-ha FIA sample hexagon, stand polygon, FIA plot, and FIA subplot (unaggregated). Standardized major axis regression model fit statistics were calculated and compared to evaluate the map products across the study area, a large portion of western and central Oregon. Based on these fit statistics, we found that the Landsat-derived maps performed best at the coarser evaluation levels (county, hexagon), airborne LiDAR-based products performed best at finer evaluation levels (stand, plot, subplot), and the SAR-dominated products showed lower agreement with ground-based AGBD estimates in this high-biomass Oregon study area. When choosing between AGBD map types, we recommend map users consider the scale of their decision space as much as type of remote sensing data or modeling approach used in map production.
AB - Maps of aboveground biomass density (AGBD) estimated from remote sensing data with models trained from inventory data are essential for carbon monitoring. Forest inventory plots in the United States (US) are measured by the forest inventory and analysis (FIA) program of the US Forest Service (USFS). These plots are spatially representative, design unbiased, and provide estimates of AGBD and other forest attributes over large spatial domains, but do not provide spatially continuous or sufficiently precise estimates over small spatial domains (e.g. forest stands). Integration with remote sensing can fill this gap, but remote sensing cannot measure AGBD directly, so models predicting ground-measured AGBD as a function of remote sensing data are often used to generate maps. We evaluated 10 alternative types of AGBD maps that used LiDAR, multispectral satellite (Landsat) image time series, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), or alternative modeling approaches. We evaluated the agreement between mapped AGBD predictions and AGBD observations collected at the FIA plots or in stands surveyed on USFS lands. Ground observations were regressed on mapped AGBD predictions at different spatial aggregation levels: county, 64 000-ha FIA sample hexagon, stand polygon, FIA plot, and FIA subplot (unaggregated). Standardized major axis regression model fit statistics were calculated and compared to evaluate the map products across the study area, a large portion of western and central Oregon. Based on these fit statistics, we found that the Landsat-derived maps performed best at the coarser evaluation levels (county, hexagon), airborne LiDAR-based products performed best at finer evaluation levels (stand, plot, subplot), and the SAR-dominated products showed lower agreement with ground-based AGBD estimates in this high-biomass Oregon study area. When choosing between AGBD map types, we recommend map users consider the scale of their decision space as much as type of remote sensing data or modeling approach used in map production.
KW - carbon monitoring system
KW - Landsat
KW - LiDAR
KW - remote sensing
KW - synthetic aperture radar
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105045926355
U2 - 10.1088/1748-9326/ae8b04
DO - 10.1088/1748-9326/ae8b04
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:105045926355
SN - 1748-9326
VL - 21
JO - Environmental Research Letters
JF - Environmental Research Letters
IS - 14
M1 - 143007
ER -