This Is An Electronic Reprint of The Original Article. This Reprint May Differ From The Original in Pagination and Typographic Detail

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.
Author(s): Tuominen, Sakari; Balazs, Andras; Honkavaara, Eija; Plnen, Ilkka; Saari, Heikki;
Hakala, Teemu; Viljanen, Niko
Title: Hyperspectral UAV-imagery and photogrammetric canopy height model in estimating

forest stand variables
Year: 2017
Version: Publisher's PDF
Please cite the original version:

Tuominen, S., Balazs, A., Honkavaara, E., Plnen, I., Saari, H., Hakala, T., & Viljanen,
N. (2017). Hyperspectral UAV-imagery and photogrammetric canopy height model in
estimating forest stand variables. Silva Fennica, 51 (5), 7721. doi:10.14214/sf.7721
All material supplied via JYX is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and
duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that
material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or
print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be
offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user.
Silva Fennica vol. 51 no. 5 article id 7721
Category: research article
SILVA FENNICA
https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.7721
http://www.silvafennica.fi
Licenced CC BY-SA 4.0
ISSN-L 0037-5330 | ISSN 2242-4075 (Online)
The Finnish Society of Forest Science
Sakari Tuominen1, Andras Balazs1, Eija Honkavaara2, Ilkka Plnen3, Heikki

Saari4, Teemu Hakala2, Niko Viljanen2
Hyperspectral UAV-imagery and photogrammetric

canopy height model in estimating forest stand variables
Tuominen S., Balazs A., Honkavaara E., Plnen I., Saari H., Hakala T., Viljanen N. (2017).
Hyperspectral UAV-imagery and photogrammetric canopy height model in estimating forest
stand variables. Silva Fennica vol. 51 no. 5 article id 7721. 21 p. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.7721
Highlights
Hyperspectral imagery and photogrammetric 3D point cloud based on RGB imagery were
acquired under weather conditions changing from cloudy to sunny.
Calibration of hyperspectral imagery was required for compensating the effect of varying
weather conditions.
The combination of hyperspectral imagery and photogrammetric point cloud data resulted in
accurate forest estimates, especially for volumes per tree species.
Abstract
Remote sensing using unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) -borne sensors is currently a highly inter-
esting approach for the estimation of forest characteristics. 3D remote sensing data from airborne
laser scanning or digital stereo photogrammetry enable highly accurate estimation of forest vari-
ables related to the volume of growing stock and dimension of the trees, whereas recognition of
tree species dominance and proportion of different tree species has been a major complication in
remote sensing-based estimation of stand variables. In this study the use of UAV-borne hyper-
spectral imagery was examined in combination with a high-resolution photogrammetric canopy
height model in estimating forest variables of 298 sample plots. Data were captured from eleven
separate test sites under weather conditions varying from sunny to cloudy and partially cloudy. Both
calibrated hyperspectral reflectance images and uncalibrated imagery were tested in combination
with a canopy height model based on RGB camera imagery using the k-nearest neighbour estima-
tion method. The results indicate that this data combination allows accurate estimation of stand
volume, mean height and diameter: the best relative RMSE values for those variables were 22.7%,
7.4% and 14.7%, respectively. In estimating volume and dimension-related variables, the use of
a calibrated image mosaic did not bring significant improvement in the results. In estimating the
volumes of individual tree species, the use of calibrated hyperspectral imagery generally brought
marked improvement in the estimation accuracy; the best relative RMSE values for the volumes
for pine, spruce, larch and broadleaved trees were 34.5%, 57.2%, 45.7% and 42.0%, respectively.
Keywords aerial imagery; hyperspectral imaging; forest inventory; radiometric calibration; UAVs;
digital photogrammetry; stereo-photogrammetric canopy modelling
Addresses 1Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Economics and society, P.O. Box 2,
FI-00791 Helsinki, Finland; 2Finnish Geospatial Research Institute, National Land Survey of
Finland, Geodeetinrinne 2, FI-02430 Masala, Finland; 3University of Jyvskyl, Faculty of Infor-
mation Technology, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014 Jyvskyl, Finland; 4VTT Microelectronics, P.O. Box
1000, FI-02044 VTT, Finland
E-mail [email protected]
Received 5 May 2017 Revised 15 September 2017 Accepted 15 September 2017
1
Silva Fennica vol. 51 no. 5 article id 7721 Tuominen et al. Hyperspectral UAV-imagery and photogrammetric
1 Introduction
Airborne laser scanning (ALS) data and digital aerial photography are used operationally in
management-oriented forest inventories aiming at producing stand-level or sub-stand-level (e.g.
plot-level) forest information. ALS is currently considered to be the most accurate remote sensing
(RS) method for estimating forest variables that are related to the physical dimensions of trees,
such as stand height and volume of growing stock (e.g. Nsset 2002, 2004; Maltamo et al. 2006).
Compared to traditional remote sensing methods based on 2-dimensional (2D) imagery that allows
mainly utilizing the spectral (tone) and textural image features (Lillesand et al. 2004), the main
benefit of the ALS data is the 3-dimensional (3D) nature of the data, which enables 3D modelling
of the forest canopy structure. Since it is possible to differentiate between laser pulses reflected
from the ground surface and those reflected from tree canopies, both digital surface model (DSM)
(or canopy surface model, CSM) and digital terrain model (DTM) can be derived from ALS data
(Axelsson 1999, 2000; Baltsavias 1999; Hyypp et al. 2000; Pyysalo 2000; Gruen and Li 2002).
As with ALS, it is possible to derive a 3D CSM based on aerial imagery using digital aerial
photogrammetry with high-resolution and stereoscopic coverage (e.g. Baltsavias et al. 2008;
St-Onge et al. 2008; Haala et al. 2010). CSMs derived using aerial photographs and digital pho-
togrammetry have been reported to be well correlated to CSMs generated from ALS data, and
they can be considered as a viable alternative to ALS (e.g. Baltsavias et al. 2008), although their
geometric accuracy is often lower (e.g. St-Onge et al. 2008; Haala et al. 2010). In the case of pho-
togrammetric CSM, no separate flights are required for the acquisition of ALS and image data,
which often have different flight parameters in relation to the acquisition altitude and coverage.
In operational forest inventories, also ALS data is typically accompanied by optical imagery,
because ALS is not considered to be well-suited for estimating tree species composition or domi-
nance, at least not at the pulse densities applied for area-based forest estimation (Trm 2000;
Packaln and Maltamo 2006, 2007; Waser et al. 2011). Of the various optical RS data sources,
colour infrared (CIR) aerial images are usually the most readily available and best-suited for forest
inventory purposes (e.g. Maltamo et al. 2006; Tuominen and Haapanen 2011). However, even with
CIR imagery the tree species recognition, and the estimation of non-dominant tree species strata in
particular, has often resulted in a level of accuracy that is not satisfactory for the purpose of forest
management (e.g. Packaln and Maltamo 2006; Tuominen et al. 2014).
As potential solutions for the tree species recognition problem, there are two main options:
either enhancing the spectral resolution by registering forest reflectance from wider spectral
wavelength areas and discriminating spectral bands more precisely, or increasing significantly
the geometric resolution of the 3D canopy models (Vauhkonen et al. 2009). Hyperspectral image
sensors have the capability of discriminating narrow spectral bands over a spectral range (Goetz
2009). Hyperspectral sensors, therefore, have higher spectral resolution than conventional wide-
band multispectral aerial imagery. On the other hand, high spectral resolution of hyperspectral
sensors is achieved at the cost of spatial resolution. Wideband multispectral RGB or CIR cameras
typically have higher spatial resolution than hyperspectral sensors, which make them better-suited
for photogrammetric 3D modelling.
The remote sensing data required for the construction of photogrammetric CSM and hyper-
spectral object reflectance properties can also be acquired by using relatively light-weight imaging
sensors, which makes it feasible to use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) as sensor carriers. For
forest inventory and mapping purposes, UAVs have certain advantages compared to conventional
aircraft (e.g. Koh and Wich 2012; Anderson and Gaston 2013). The UAVs used for agricultural
or forestry remote sensing applications are typically much smaller than conventional aircraft, and
in covering small areas they are more economical to use, since they consume less fuel or electric
2
energy and often require less maintenance. Furthermore, they are very flexible in relation to their
requirements for take-off and landing sites, which makes it possible to operate from locations that
are close to the area of interest. UAVs also have disadvantages compared to conventional aircraft.
Because UAVs are usually small in size, their sensor load and the flying range are somewhat limited,
which makes their use less feasible in typical operational forest inventory areas (e.g. Tuominen
et al. 2015).
CSMs and imagery collected using consumer-grade colour and CIR cameras from UAV
platform have been used recently in several studies in estimating forest variables (e.g. Lisein et al.
2013; Puliti et al. 2015; Tuominen et al. 2015). Also miniaturized hyperspectral imaging technol-
ogy has developed rapidly in recent years, and the sensors are being implemented in small UAVs
(Colomina and Molina 2014). In several studies push broom hyperspectral imaging sensors have
been implemented in UAVs (Hruska et al. 2012; Zarco-Tejada et al. 2012; Bttner and Rser
2014; Lucieer et al. 2014; Suomalainen et al. 2014). Recently, hyperspectral cameras operating
in the 2D frame format principle have entered the market (Mkynen et al. 2011; Saari et al. 2011;
Honkavaara et al. 2013; Aasen et al. 2015). These sensors are expected to outperform push broom
scanners based technologies by producing better image quality in dynamic UAV applications, and
by not requiring expensive GNSS/IMU-sensors for georeferencing.
In a dense forest it is not possible to derive an accurate DTM with photogrammetric methods,
because not enough ground surface is visible in the aerial images (Bohlin et al. 2012; Jrnstedt et
al. 2012; White et al. 2013). Thus, a DTM needs to be obtained by other means in order to be able
to derive the canopy and vegetation height (above ground) from the CSM. In several countries,
including Finland, acquisition of a highly accurate DTM based on ALS during the leafless season
is underway for the entire country. Since one can assume that the terrains surface changes very
slowly, this DTM can be used for consecutive forest inventories, and only the CSM has to be rebuilt
for the new inventory cycles. In this situation, photogrammetry and hyperspectral imaging oper-
ated from a low-cost UAV platform provide an interesting approach for the forest inventory task.
This investigation examined the performance of calibrated and non-calibrated UAV-borne
hyperspectral imagery and a photogrammetric canopy height model derived from stereo imagery
from a UAV-borne consumer-grade camera. Previously the same data set was used in individual
tree-based species classification (Nevalainen et al. 2017). The objective of this study was to test
the combination of hyperspectral orthoimagery and a CSM based on high-spatial-resolution RGB
imagery acquired using UAV-borne camera sensors in estimating forest inventory variables. In
addition, the effect of the hyperspectral image calibration was tested on the estimation accuracy.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Study area and field data
The study area was the Vesijako research forest area in the municipality of Padasjoki in Southern
Finland (approximately 6124N, 2502E). The area has been used as a research forest by the
former Finnish Forest Research Institute (now part of the Natural Resources Institute of Finland).
Eleven experimental test sites from stands dominated by pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), spruce (Picea
abies [L.] H. Karst.), birch (Betula pendula Roth) or larch (Larix sibirica Ledeb.) were used in
this study. The test sites represented development stages from young to middle-aged and mature
stands (no seedling stands or clear-cut areas). Within each test site there were 216 experimental
plots treated with differing silvicultural schemes and cutting systems (altogether 56 experimental
plots). The size of the experimental plots was 10002000 m2. Within the experimental plots all
3
Table 1. Average, maximum (Max), minimum (Min) and standard deviation (SD) of field variables in the field
data in study area 2.
Forest variable Average Max Min SD
Total volume, m3 ha1 329.8 1160.8 33.2 220.5

Volume of Scots pine, m3 ha1 201.0 826.0 0.0 163.6
Volume of Norway spruce, m3 ha1 46.9 420.0 0.0 88.9
Volume of Larix sp., m3 ha1 39.9 1110.8 0.0 185.9
Volume of broadleaved, m3 ha1 42.0 352.6 0.0 84.7
Mean diameter, cm 22.9 55.4 13.9 7.7
Mean height, m 21.2 39.4 14.3 5.1
Basal area, m2 ha1 31.4 78.5 3.7 14.6
trees with a breast-height diameter of at least 50 mm were measured as tally trees in 20112012.
For each tally tree, the following variables were recorded: location within plot, tree species and
diameter at breast height. Height was measured from sample trees in each plot and estimated for
all tally trees. The geographic location of the experimental plots was measured with a Global
Positioning System (GPS) device, and the locations were processed with local base station data,
with an average error of approximately 1 m. ALS-based DTM (with a spatial resolution of 2 m)
provided by the National Land Survey of Finland was used as the reference terrain level in the
study area.
For this study 298 fixed-radius (9 m) circular sample plots were placed on the experimental
plots (48 circular plots per each experimental plot depending on the size and the shape of the
experimental pots). The plot variables of the circular sample plots were calculated on the basis
of the tree maps of the experimental plots. The main forest statistics of the field material are pre-
sented in Table 1. Some of the sample plots have an exceptionally high amount of growing stock
compared to values typical for this geographic area, which can be seen in the maximum values
and standard deviation of the volumes of the field observations of this study area (Table 1). The
areas with the highest amount of growing stock are dominated by pine and larch. The location
of the study area is illustrated in Fig. 1, and the layout of the test sites within the study area is
presented in Fig.2.
In the analysis the trees were separated into the following species groups: pine, spruce, larch
and broadleaved trees (mainly birch but containing a small portion of non-dominant aspen and
grey alder). In the field data, approximately 60% of field plots represent young and middle-aged
forests, corresponding roughly to volume classes 100200 m2 ha1 and 200300 m2 ha1 respec-
tively. From the remaining part, 37 % of the field plots represent volume classes over 300 m2 ha1
(mature forests) and 3.4% volume class less than 100 m3 ha1 (mainly advanced seedling stands).
The distribution of the measured stand volumes of the field plots is presented in Fig. 3.
2.2 Aerial imagery
Altogether 11 test sites were captured in 8 UAV flights in 2526.6.2014 (Table 2, Table 3). The
most significant information of the dataset is given in the following, and more details can be found
in Nevalainen et al. (2017).
The UAV platform frame was a Tarot 960 hexacopter with the Pixhawk autopilot equipped
with Arducopter 3.15 firmware. Payload capacity of the system is about 3 kg and the flight time is
1030 min depending on payload, battery, conditions, and flight style. The system setup is shown
in Fig. 4.
4
Fig. 1. Location of the study area.
Fig. 2. Layout of the 11 test sites in the study area (topographic map and eleva-
tion model National Land Survey of Finland, 2014).
5
Fig. 3. Distribution of field plots in relation to growing stock volume.
Table 2. Flight conditions and camera settings during the flights. Median irradiance was taken from Intersil ISL29004
irradiance measurements. Flight height is given from the ground level.
Area Date Time Weather Solar Sun Median Exposure Flight height
(GPS) elevation azimuth irrad (ms) (m)
v01 26.6 11:07 to 11:23 cloudy 50.91 199.22 2602 10 94

v02 26.6 12:09 to 12:22 cloudy 47.38 219.63 4427 12 88
v0304 25.6 10:38 to 10:51 varying 51.79 188.36 variable 6 85
v05 25.6 09:26 to 09:40 varying 50.93 160.69 variable 6 86
v0607 25.6 12:14 to 12:24 cloudy 47 221.30 3773 10 94
v08 26.6 09:58 to 10:09 sunny 51.84 173.41 13894 10 86
v09v10 25.6 13:51 to 14:12 cloudy 37.20 249.45 2546 8 84
v11 26.6 08:49 to 08:58 varying 49.1 148.44 13982 10 83
Table 3. Results of orientation processing; numbers of GCPs and images, reprojection errors and
point density in pointsm2.
Block N GCP RGB and FPI RGB
N images Reproj. N images Reproj. Pointcloud

error (pix) error (pix) points m2
v01 7 714 0.70 291 0.84 484

v02 4 469 0.64 176 0.73 555
v0304 9 758 0.60 281 0.70 711
v05 5 717 0.68 292 0.89 601
v06 3 193 0.91 76 1.10 510
v07 4 176 1.63 68 2.56 524
v08 5 421 0.73 178 0.99 538
v09 4 280 0.57 109 0.66 621
v10 3 182 0.65 70 0.88 484
v11 4 469 0.478 469 0.478 833
6
Fig. 4. UAV system (left) based on a Tarot 960 hexacopter and close-up of the sensor configuration (right) (Photographs
by Tapio Huttunen).
A hyperspectral camera based on a tuneable Fabry-Prot interferometer (FPI) (Mkynen

et al. 2011; Saari et al. 2011; Honkavaara et al. 2013) was used to capture the spectral data. The
FPI camera captures frame-format hyperspectral images in a time sequential mode; the time lap
is 0.075 s between adjacent exposures and 1.8 s during the entire data cube. Because of the time
lap each band of the data cube has a slightly different position and orientation, which has to be
taken into account in the post-processing phase. The image size was 1024 648 pixels and the
pixel size was 11 m. The FPI camera has a focal length of 10.9 mm; the field of view (FOV) is
18 in the flight direction, 27 in the cross-flight direction, and 31 at the format corner. The
camera system has an irradiance sensor based on an Intersil ISL29004 photodetector to measure the
wideband irradiance during each exposure (Hakala et al. 2013). Spectral settings can be selected
according to the requirements. In this study altogether 38 bands were used with a full width of a
half maximum (FWHM) of 1131 nm (Table 4). In order to capture high spatial resolution data,
the UAV was also equipped with an ordinary Samsung NX1000 RGB compact digital camera. The
camera has a 23.5 15.7 mm CMOS sensor with a 20.3 megapixel resolution, and a 16 mm lens.
Flying height from the ground level was 8394 m providing an average GSD of 8.6 cm for
the FPI images and 2.3 cm for the RGB images on the ground level. The flight height was approxi-
mately 6273 m from the tree tops, giving average GSDs of 6.5 cm and 1.8 cm at tree tops for the
FPI and RGB data sets, respectively. The flight speed was about 4 m s1. The FPI image blocks
had average forward and side overlaps of 67% and 61%, respectively at the nominal ground level,
and 58% and 50%, respectively, at the tree top level. For the RGB blocks, the average forward
and side overlaps were 78% and 73%, respectively, at the ground level; at the level of treetops,
the average forward and side overlaps were 72% and 65%, respectively.
Table 4. Spectral settings of the FPI VIS/NIR. L0: central wavelength; FWHM: full width at half maximum.
L0 (nm): 507.60, 509.50, 514.50, 520.80, 529.00, 537.40, 545.80, 554.40, 562.70, 574.20, 583.60, 590.40, 598.80,
605.70, 617.50, 630.70, 644.20, 657.20, 670.10, 677.80, 691.10, 698.40, 705.30, 711.10, 717.90, 731.30, 738.50,
751.50, 763.70, 778.50, 794.00, 806.30, 819.70, 833.70, 845.80, 859.10, 872.80, 885.60
FWHM (nm): 11.2, 13.6, 19.4, 21.8, 22.6, 20.7, 22.0, 22.2, 22.1, 21.6, 18.0, 19.8, 22.7, 27.8, 29.3, 29.9, 26.9, 30.3,
28.5, 27.8, 30.7, 28.3, 25.4, 26.6, 27.5, 28.2, 27.4, 27.5, 30.5, 29.5, 25.9, 27.3, 29.9, 28.0, 28.9, 32.0, 30.8, 27.9
7
Imaging conditions were quite windless, but illumination varied a lot. Illumination conditions
were cloudy and quite uniform during flights v01, v02, v0607, v0910. Test site v08 was captured
under sunny conditions and during flights v0304, v05 and v11 the illumination conditions varied
between sunny to cloudy.
2.3 Geometric and radiometric processing of images
2.3.1 Geometric processing
Geometric processing included determination of the orientations of the images and measurement
of the 3D point clouds. The Agisoft PhotoScan Professional commercial software (AgiSoft LLC,
St. Petersburg, Russia) and Finnish Geospatial Research Institutes (FGI) in-house software were
used for geometric processing. Orientations of the FPI images were determined in integrated pro-
cessing with the RGB images. Three FPI bands (reference) were included simultaneously in the
processing. The numbers of images in the integrated blocks were 176758 (Table 3). The outputs
of the process were the camera calibrations and the image exterior orientations which were trans-
formed to the ETRS-TM35FIN coordinate system using the GCPs in the area. Orientations of the
bands of the FPI images that were not included in the orientation processing were determined by
matching unoriented bands to the oriented bands using the FGIs in-house software. Orientations of
the RGB dataset were determined also separately without the FPI images, and dense point clouds
were then generated using two-times down-sampled RGB images.
Statistics of the geometric processing indicated good accuracy (Table 3). The reprojection
errors were mostly 0.60.9 pixels; for block v07 the reprojection errors were up to 2.5 pixels, but
the data fitted well with the reference airborne laser scanning data that was available from the area.
The dense point clouds had point densities of about 500700 points per m2, and with approximately
5 cm point distance. Point clouds were resampled to a grid CSM with a 5 cm point interval for the
study. Height above ground (H) values were calculated for the points by subtracting the ALS-based
DTM values from the point Z coordinate values, thus resulting in a canopy height model (CHM).
2.3.2 Radiometric processing
Our objective was to analyse different test areas simultaneously thus it was necessary to scale
the radiometric values to a similar scale. The absolute reflectance calibration was the preferred
approach. Reflectance reference panels of a size of 1 1 m and nominal reflectance of 0.03, 0.09
and 0.50 were installed close to the take-off location in each study site in order to carry out the
reflectance transformation using the empirical line method (Smith and Milton 1999). Unfortunately
the targets were surrounded by tall trees, thus the illumination conditions in reference targets did
not correspond to the illumination conditions on top of the canopy. Because of this they did not
provide accurate reflectance calibration by empirical line method. A further challenge was that the
illumination conditions were variable during many of the flights, providing large relative differ-
ences in radiometric values within the blocks and between different blocks.
Radiometric processing was carried out using the FGIs in-house software (Honkavaara et
al. 2013). Two different radiometric processing options were used. In the first, normalization was
not used within or between the blocks, thus the DNs were used directly. Second approach was to
transform the DNs to reflectance and use a radiometric block adjustment and inflight irradiance data
to normalize the differences within and between the blocks. Area v06 (see Fig. 5b) was selected
as the reference area and empirical line-based reflectance calibration was calculated using this
area; the disturbance due to surrounding forest vegetation was the least in this area. Radiometric
8
Fig. 5a. Original image mosaic (left) acquired in weather conditions changing from cloudy to clear during imaging
flight and radiometrically calibrated mosaic (right).
Fig. 5b. Original image mosaic (left) acquired in uniform cloudy weather conditions during imaging flight and radio-
metrically calibrated mosaic (right).
adjustment was calculated within the images of each image block, and then relative correction was
calculated between the reference block and each block using the irradiance observations; details of
the processing are given by Nevalainen et al. (2017). Examples of uncalibrated and radiometrically
calibrated image mosaics are presented in Fig. 5a (changing weather conditions during imaging
flight) and Fig. 5b (uniform cloudy weather during imaging flight).
2.3.3 Mosaic calculation
Hyperspectral orthophoto mosaics were calculated with 10 cm GSD from the FPI images using
the FGIs processing software with the following radiometric processing options: no corrections;
absolute calibration and relative normalizations. The RGB mosaics were calculated using the
PhotoScan mosaicking module with a 5 cm GSD.
2.4 Extraction of remote sensing features
The remote sensing features were extracted for nine-metre radius circular sample plots, except for
textural features where 16 16 m windows centred on the sample plots were used. The size was
set to correspond to the size of the circular plots.
9
The following raster features were extracted from calibrated and non-calibrated hyperspec-
tral imagery, true colour (red, green and blue channels) imagery and rasterized point height data:
1. Spectral averages (AVG) of pixel values of channels 138 of the hyperspectral imagery and the first
principal component calculated using all 38 hyperspectral channels (pixel values with a height
above ground less than 2.0 metres were excluded)
2. Standard deviations (STD) of pixel values of data sets as for AVG (pixel values with a height above
ground less than 2.0 metres were excluded)
3. Textural features based on co-occurrence matrices of pixel values of hyperspectral channels 18
(red), 36 (near infrared); first band of the principal components images; R, G & B channels of
the true colour imagery & H (Haralick et al. 1973; Haralick 1979)
a. Sum Average (SA)
b. Entropy (ENT)
c. Difference Entropy (DE)
d. Sum Entropy (SE)
e. Variance (VAR):
f. Difference Variance (DV)
g. Sum Variance (SV)
h. Angular Second Moment (ASM, also called Uniformity)
i. Inverse Difference Moment (IDM, also called Homogeneity)
j. Contrast (CON)
k. Correlation (COR)
The following features were extracted from photogrammetric (XYZ format) 3D point data
(Nsset 2004; Packaln and Maltamo 2006, 2008):
1. Average value of H of vegetation points [m] (HAVG)
2. Standard deviation of H of vegetation points [m] (HSTD)
3. H where percentages of vegetation points (0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, , 90%, 95%, 100%) were accu-
mulated [m] (e.g. H0, H05,...,H95, H100)
4. Coefficient of variation of H of vegetation points [%] (HCV)
5. Proportion of vegetation points [%] (VEG)
6. Canopy densities corresponding to the proportions points above fraction no. 0, 1, , 9 to a total
number of points (D0, D1, , D9)
7. Proportion of vegetation points having H greater or equal to corresponding percentile of H (i.e.
P20 is the proportion of points having H>=H20) (%) *
8. Ratio of the number of vegetation points to the number of ground points
9. Proportion of ground points (%), where:
H = height above ground
vegetation point = point with H > = 2 m
ground point = other than vegetation point
* the range of H was divided into 10 fractions (0, 1, 2,, 9) of equal distance
2.5 Feature selection and estimation of forest variables
The k-nearest neighbour (k-nn) method was used for the estimation of the forest variables. The
estimated stand variables were total volume of growing stock (volume), the volumes of Scots
pine (vol.pine), Norway spruce (vol.spruce), Siberian larch (vol.larch) and broadleaved species
(vol.broadleaved), mean diameter (d) and mean height (h). Different values of k were tested
in the estimation procedure. In the k-nn estimation (Kilkki and Pivinen 1987; Muinonen and
10
Tokola 1990; Tomppo 1991), the Euclidean distances between the sample plots were calculated
in the n-dimensional feature space, where n stands for the number of remote sensing features
used. The stand variable estimates for the sample plots were calculated as weighted averages of
the stand variables of the k-nearest neighbours (Eq. 1). Weighting by inverse squared Euclid-
ean distance in the feature space was applied (Eq. 2) for diminishing the bias of the estimates
(Altman 1992). Without weighting, the k-nn method often causes undesirable averaging in the
estimates, especially at the high end of the stand volume distribution, where the reference data
is typically sparse.
k
y = wi yi (1)
i =1
where:
y = estimate for variable y
yi = measured value of variable y in the ith nearest neighbour plot
1 1
wi = / = weight for plot i (2 )
dig dig
where:
di = Euclidean distance (in the feature space) to the ith nearest neighbour plot
k = number of nearest neighbours
g = parameter for adjusting the progression of weight with increasing distance*
* g = 0: equal weight for all distances; g = 1: weight inverse of distance; g = 2: weight inverse
of squared distance, etc.
The accuracy of the estimates was calculated via leave-one-out cross-validation by comparing the
estimated forest variable values with the measured values (ground truth) of the field plots. In the
cross-validation all circular plots within same experimental plot were excluded from the nearest
neighbours. The accuracy of the estimates was measured in terms of the relative root mean square
error (RMSE) (Eq. 3) and relative bias (Eq. 4).
RMSE
RMSE% = 100 * (3)
y
Bias
Bias% = 100 * ( 4)
y
where:
n
( yi yi )2
i 1
RMSE
n
n
( yi yi )
i 1
Bias
n
11
yi = measured value of variable y on plot i

i = estimated value of variable y on plot i
= mean of the observed values
n = number of plots.
The remote sensing datasets encompassed a total of 144 aerial photograph features, 11 features from
rasterised canopy height data and 35 3D point features. All aerial image and point features were
scaled to a standard deviation of 1. This was done because the original features had very diverse
scales of variation. Without scaling, variables with wide variation would have had greater weight
in the estimation, regardless of their capability for estimating the forest variables.
Feature selection was carried out with two sets of features. One including features extracted
from calibrated, the other from non-calibrated, hyperspectral imagery. From here on these are
referred to as calibrated feature set and non-calibrated feature set.
The extracted feature set was large, presenting a high-dimensional feature space for the k-nn
estimation. In order to avoid the problems of the high-dimensional feature space, i.e. the curse
of dimensionality, which is inclined to complicate the nearest neighbour search (Beyer et al.
1999; Hinneburg et al. 2000), the dimensionality of the data was reduced by selecting a subset of
features with the aim of good discrimination ability. The selection of the features was performed
with a genetic algorithm (GA) -based approach, implemented in the R language by means of the
Genalg package (Willighagen and Ballings 2015; R Development Core Team 2016). This approach
searches for the subset of predictor variables based on criteria defined by the user. Although there
is no guarantee of finding the optimal predictor variable subset (Garey and Johnson 1979), and the
algorithm does not go through all possible combinations, solutions close to optimal can usually be
found in a feasible computational time.
The general GA procedure begins by generating an initial population of strings (chromo-
somes or genomes), which consist of a random combination of predictor variables (genes). Each
chromosome is considered a binary string having values 1 or 0 indicating that certain variable is
either selected in the subset or not selected. The strings evolve over a user-defined number
of iterations (generations). This evolution includes the following operations: selecting strings for
mating by applying a user-defined objective criterion (the more copies in the mating pool, the
better), allowing the strings in the mating pool to swap parts (cross over), causing random noise
(mutations) in the offspring (children), and passing the resulting strings to the next generation. The
process is repeated until a pre-defined criterion is fulfilled or a pre-determined number of iterations
have been completed (Broadhurst et al. 1997; Tuominen and Haapanen 2013; Moser et al. 2017).
Here the evaluation function of the genetic algorithm was employed to minimise the RMSEs of
k-nn estimates for each variable in leave-one-out cross-validation. The feature selection was carried
out for a combined set of forest variables as well as separately for each forest variable. The sets of
selected features are referred to as common (for all variables at the time) or individual (for one variable
at the time) from here on. In the combined set the individual forest variables were weighted as follows:
total volume of growing stock: 30%
volume of pine: 10%
volume of spruce: 10%
volume of larch: 10%
volume of broadleaved trees: 10%
stand mean height: 20%
stand mean diameter: 10%
All 298 plots were used in the GA procedure for testing each generation of features.
12
In the selection procedure, the population consisted of 200 binary chromosomes, and the
number of generations was 60. Thirteen feature-selection runs were carried out for all forest vari-
ables at one time as well as separately for each variable to find the feature set that returned the
best evaluation value. In selecting the feature weights, floating point chromosomes with values in
the range of 01 were used and the number of generations was set to 60. Otherwise the selection
procedure was similar to the feature selection. The values for parameters k and g (Eq. 1 and2)
were selected during the test runs. When selecting common features for all forest variables the
number of nearest neighbours was 3 and 5, and g was 2.6 and 2.9 for the calibrated and non-
calibrated feature set, respectively. When selecting features individually for each forest variable
the number of nearest neighbours varied between 3 and 6 for both feature sets depending on the
variable, and g was between 1.5 and 2.6 for the calibrated feature set, and between 0.7 and 3.0 for
the non-calibrated feature set.
3 Results
The main estimation results for the tested forest variables are presented in Table 5a (non-calibrated
HS-mosaic & common features), Table 5b (non-calibrated HS-mosaic & individual features),
Table5c (calibrated HS-mosaic & common features) and Table 5d (calibrated HS-mosaic & indi-
vidual features). The Tables 5ad present relative RMSE and bias of the estimates, as well as the
value of k (number of nearest neighbours) and g (weighting factor within k-nn) returned by the
GA. Furthermore, the number of features selected by the GA for each variable is listed in the tables
specified for each data type: 3D CHM data (n.3D), HS imagery (n.HS), RGB imagery (n.RGB)
and total number of selected features (n.feat). The relative RMSEs for the respective combinations
are also illustrated in Fig. 6.
The calibration of the HS mosaic resulted in, to some extent, inconsistent effect in the
estimation accuracy when compared to non-calibrated imagery. All estimation results were
measured by the relative RMSEs of the tested variables. In the estimation of forest variables
related to the size and amount of trees, such as mean diameter, height and total growing stock,
the effect of the calibrated HS image mosaic was mostly negligible. The effect of the calibrated
HS mosaic was slightly negative in estimating mean height and diameter; the estimation accu-
racy of diameter decreased 35% and height 24% (depending on whether RS features were
selected for all forest variables at the time or individually for each forest variable). In the esti-
mation of total volume of growing stock, the use of the calibrated mosaic brought about a 14%
improvement in the estimation accuracy, when using common features and estimation param-
eters for all variables, but a 6% decrease, when using features and parameters selected individu-
ally for volume estimation.
In the estimation volumes for individual tree species the calibrated mosaic generally per-
formed pronouncedly better than non-calibrated imagery. The estimation accuracy of pine volume
was improved 814% (with common and individual feature sets, respectively), and spruce volume
1221%. The results for larch and broadleaved trees were, again, inconclusive. Calibrated imagery
gave 34% improvement in the estimation accuracy of larch volume, when using common features
and estimation parameters for all variables, but 12% decrease when using features and parameters
selected individually for this variable. When estimating the volume of broadleaved trees, calibrated
imagery decreased the estimation accuracy by 28%, when using common features and estimation
parameters, but improved by 6% when using individually selected features and parameters.
There was a similar but more pronounced difference when comparing estimates based on RS
features and estimation parameters common to all variables vs. estimates based on individual fea-
13
Table 5a. Estimation results, non-calibrated HS-mosaic, common features.

Variable k g RMSE (%) Bias (%) n.3D.feat. n.HS.feat. n.RGB.feat. n.feat.
D 3 2.6 18.32 2.17 7 9 1 17

H 3 2.6 8.67 0.40 7 9 1 17
Volume 3 2.6 31.47 0.59 7 9 1 17
vol.pine 3 2.6 45.66 0.54 7 9 1 17
vol.spruce 3 2.6 97.58 1.18 7 9 1 17
vol.larch 3 2.6 91.53 1.31 7 9 1 17
vol.broadleaved 3 2.6 63.98 7.26 7 9 1 17
n.3D.feat. = number of 3D features; n.HS.feat. = number of hyperspectral features; n.RGB.feat. = number of RGB features; n.feat. =
total number of selected features.
Table 5b. Estimation results, non-calibrated HS-mosaic, individual features.

D 5 0.7 14.71 0.52 4 11 0 15

H 5 1.3 7.36 0.07 4 5 1 10
Volume 5 2.9 22.65 0.00 8 7 1 16
vol.pine 3 0.7 40.02 0.03 4 5 1 10
vol.spruce 6 2.0 65.06 0.02 6 18 1 25
vol.larch 3 3.0 45.67 3.00 6 11 3 20
vol.broadleaved 5 2.0 44.52 0.04 5 14 2 21
n.3D.feat. = number of 3D features; n.HS.feat. = number of hyperspectral features; n.RGB.feat. = number of RGB
features; n.feat. = total number of selected features.
Table 5c. Estimation results, calibrated HS-mosaic, common features.

D 5 2.9 19.19 1.76 9 6 1 16

H 5 2.9 9.05 0.43 9 6 1 16
Volume 5 2.9 26.93 1.60 9 6 1 16
vol.pine 5 2.9 41.94 0.66 9 6 1 16
vol.spruce 5 2.9 77.52 9.68 9 6 1 16
vol.larch 5 2.9 60.22 2.30 9 6 1 16
vol.broadleaved 5 2.9 81.98 7.10 9 6 1 16
Table 5d. Estimation results, calibrated HS-mosaic, individual features.

D 5 2.0 15.20 1.76 4 8 0 12

H 6 1.5 7.50 0.14 6 5 3 14
Volume 5 2.5 23.96 0.00 8 4 2 14
vol.pine 5 2.0 34.51 0.00 11 8 0 19
vol.spruce 5 2.3 57.16 0.01 6 7 2 15
vol.larch 3 2.6 51.07 0.29 5 5 2 12
vol.broadleaved 4 2.1 42.00 1.38 7 13 2 22
14
Fig. 6. Relative RMSEs of the estimated forest variables with the tested two calibration options (N-cal = non calibrated;
Calib. = calibrated imagery) and feature selection strategies (common features for all variables vs. individual feature
set for each variable).
tures and parameters. Using individually selected features and parameters improved the estimation
accuracies of diameter by 20% and 21% (with non-calibrated and calibrated imagery, respectively),
height 15% and 17% and total volume of growing stock 28% and 11%, respectively, and whereupon
the best total volume estimate was based on features extracted using non-calibrated HS imagery.
When estimating volumes per tree species, individually selected features and parameters improved
the estimation accuracies (compared to features and estimation parameters common to all variables)
for pine 12% and 18% (with non-calibrated and calibrated imagery, respectively), for spruce 33%
and 26%, for larch 50% and 15% and for broadleaved trees 30% and 49%. For all tree species except
larch, the best estimates were based on features extracted using calibrated HS imagery.
Generally, the accuracy of estimated volume of pine was closest to that of total volume,
and it seemed to follow closely the total volume in the estimation results. For other tree species
the estimation accuracies were markedly poorer, and had more variation with different feature
combinations.
When selecting features and parameters individually for the forest variables, the total number
of selected features varied from 10 to 25 and the value of k between 3 and 6. For all forest vari-
ables, both 3D features and HS features were highly represented in the selected ones, and their
proportion together was approx. 80100% of the selected features. Features from RGB imagery
had low weight in the estimation, and the number of selected RGB features was 03. Generally,
3D features were most highly represented in the estimation of height, total volume and also volume
of pine. Otherwise, in the estimation of volumes per tree species, HS features were in the majority
among the selected ones, as well as in the estimation of diameter. The value of k returned by the
15
Table 6. Estimation results, calibrated HS-mosaic, features optimized for tree species volumes.
vol.pine 5 3 40.63 0.43 9 12 3 24

vol.spruce 5 3 75.78 1.56 9 12 3 24
vol.broadleaved 5 3 50.05 0.48 9 12 3 24
n.3D.feat. = number of 3D features; n.HS.feat. = number of hyperspectral features; n.RGB.feat. = number of RGB features; n.feat. =
total number of selected features.
GA was in most cases between 4 and 6, but in the estimation of volume of larch k was 3 (as well
as for pine volume, in the case of non-calibrated HS mosaic).
When using a common set of features for all forest variables, in total 1617 features were
selected; 3D features were in the majority in the case of calibrated HS mosaic (9/16 of the selected
features), whereas HS features were in the majority in the case of non-calibrated HS imagery (9/17
of the selected features); in both cases, only one RGB feature was selected.
Since the GA did not seem to be able to achieve a solution with a common set of features,
which would result in good estimation accuracy for both variables related to tree dimension/
total volume and volumes per tree species, common feature selection aiming at good tree species
recognition that weighted only volumes per main tree species were also tested: pine, spruce and
broadleaved trees by 30%, 30% and 40 %, respectively. Only calibrated imagery was used in
extracting HS features. This solution was markedly better in the estimation of volumes per tree
species than other feature sets common to all forest variables (presented in Tables 5a and 5c). The
estimation accuracies (measured by relative RMSEs) were somewhere in the middle between
common features sets for all forest variables and individual features for all variables. However,
especially the accuracy of the volume of pine was close to that of the individually selected feature
set (results presented in Table 6).
4 Discussion
The general accuracy of the forest variable estimates in this study was high, when compared to
estimates based on ALS and aerial CIR imagery or aerial imagery and photogrammetric 3D data in
similar forest conditions. The lowest relative RMSE values for diameter, height and total volume
were 14.7%, 7.4% and 22.7% and they were obtained by using individual predictor features for each
estimated forest variable. Generally, for research purposes, such as in this case, it is worthwhile
to test features tailored to each forest variable individually, whereas in practical forest inventory
applications it is typical to use a common feature set for all variables, since the number of inventory
variables is often high, and it would not be feasible to have separate features for them.
For comparison, results by, e.g. Jrnstedt et al. (2012), who used ALS data with significantly
higher point density than typically applied in operational ALS-based forest inventory (approx.
10 pulses m2), had still significantly larger RMSE values for diameter, height and total volume
than presented in this study: 25.3%, 18.6% and 31.3%, respectively. Results by Tuominen et al.
(2015) utilizing UAV-borne CIR camera imagery and photogrammetric CSM were also markedly
poorer in estimating all tested forest variables; their best estimate for diameter had an RMSE
value of 18.4%, height 14.4%, total volume 25.5% and volumes for pine spruce and broadleaved
trees 70.9%, 70.7% and 72.8%, respectively. One factor worth noting is that this study, as well as
Jrnstedt et al. (2012), had extensive field reference data that can be considered well representa-
tive for the study area, which makes it possible to have an adequate number of potential reference
plots required by the nearest neighbour estimators used in these studies. Instead, field reference
16
data used by Tuominen et al. (2015) was limited in number, which tends to impair the accuracy of
nearest neighbour estimates. Puliti et al. (2015) have used UAV-borne CIR camera imagery and
photogrammetric 3D data in Norwegian forest areas applying a roughly similar spatial resolution
as in this study. Their estimation results are also quite similar to this study, with the exception that
Puliti et al. tested also dominant height (which typically correlates highly with 3D canopy models)
resulting in very high estimation accuracy with a relative RMSE value of 3.5%. The results may
not be fully comparable since the distribution of measured heights and volumes (maxmin) in the
field data of Puliti et al. was significantly narrower than in this study. When using photogrammetric
3D data in temperate Central European forest conditions, Ullah et al. (2015) have achieved relative
RMSEs of 30% for total volume with k-nn estimator (Ullah et al. did not test volume estimation
per tree species). Stepper et al. (2016) have reported relative RMSEs of 15.1%, 10.1%, and 35.3%
respectively for diameter and height and volume for the spruce-dominated forest, and 15.9%, 9.7%,
and 32.1% for the beech-dominated forest, respectively (Stepper et al. have used diameter and
height of 100 largest trees ha1, i.e. dominant diameter and height instead). The distribution and
mean of the volume in the field data used by Stepper et al. (2016) was remarkably similar as in this
study. Also the mean volume used by Ullah et al. (2015) was in the same magnitude as in this study.
Thus, based on the estimation results of the forest height and volume, it can be assessed that
the photogrammetric 3D data used in this study was of remarkably high quality. The contributing
factors here presumably are high spatial resolution and sufficient stereo overlap of the original
imagery, even despite the fact that the imaging conditions were not optimal because of the chal-
lenging illumination conditions due to the changing cloudiness during the imaging flights.
As noted in the results, the calibration of the hyperspectral imagery had practically very
little effect on the estimation accuracy of diameter, height and total volume of growing stock,
whereas in estimating the volumes of individual tree species, the image calibration had clearly
an improving effect on the results in most cases. As expected, the calibrated imagery resulted in
higher accuracy for tree species other than larch, for which the effect was contrary to expectations.
This, however, may not necessarily indicate any problem in the image calibration, but instead it
may be caused by the composition of the field material. Larch formed a significant portion of the
total growing stock in relatively few plots, but a number of plots in the high end of the volume
distribution were dominated by larch, as indicated by Table 1, where the maximum larch volume
was close to maximal total volume. On the other hand, the average volume of larch in the total
field data was quite low. Because the volume distribution of the individual tree species was quite
different, it is highly likely that 3D features alone were sufficient in predicting volumes of certain
species such as larch. If the volume distributions of the tested tree species had been more alike,
then the HS features in general would probably have had more weight in their estimation, and the
effect of calibration would also have been more evident.
The hyperspectral dataset used in this study was challenging, which might have reduced the
achieved accuracy. Conditions during the data capture were typical for the northern climate zone
during summer with variable cloudiness and rain. Such conditions are challenging in the case of
passive remote sensing because they cause variable image characteristics. As the UAVs are typi-
cally operated at low altitudes, and often below cloud cover, it is expected that clouds will cause
challenges in many operational applications. Furthermore, the data capture was carried out in deep
forest where it was not possible to utilize in-situ reflectance panels in most of the areas. Com-
pensation of the radiometric non-uniformities from the images is necessary in order to normalize
the data. The frequently used methods based on reflectance panels or radiative transfer modelling
(Zarco-Tejada et al. 2012; Bttner and Rser 2014; Lucieer et al. 2014; Suomalainen et al. 2014)
are not suitable in such conditions. The novel radiometric processing approach based on radiomet-
ric block adjustment and on-board irradiance measurements (Hakala et al. 2013; Honkavaara et
17
al. 2013) compensated efficiently the differences between the images within flights and between
different flights and mostly improved results in variables that were related to tree species. Future
studies should improve the methods for radiometric calibration and examine the requirements for
radiometric correction.
Our results showed that UAV-based photogrammetry and hyperspectral imaging is a promis-
ing method for stand variable estimation. The most important advantage is the markedly improved
tree species recognition compared to traditional RGB and CIR aerial imagery, but also the estima-
tion accuracy of variables related to growing stock volume and size equals the accuracy of ALS.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation Tekes
through the HSI-Stereo project (grant number 2208/31/2013). The authors also wish to thank Prof.
Jari Hynynen of Natural Resources Institute Finland for the support in the acquisition of field data
for this study.
References
Aasen H., Burkart A., Bolten A., Bareth G. (2015). Generating 3D hyperspectral information
with lightweight UAV snapshot cameras for vegetation monitoring: from camera calibration
to quality assurance. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 108: 245259.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.08.002.
Altman N.S. (1992). An introduction to kernel and nearest-neighbor nonparametric regression.
The American Statistician 46(3): 175185. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1992.10475879.
Anderson K., Gaston K.J. (2013). Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize
spatial ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(3): 138146. https://doi.
org/10.1890/120150.
Axelsson P. (1999). Processing of laser scanner data algorithms and applications. ISPRS Journal
of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 54(23): 138147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-
2716(99)00008-8.
Axelsson P. (2000). DEM generation from laser scanner data using adaptive TIN models. Interna-
tional Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 33: 110117.
Baltsavias E. (1999). A comparison between photogrammetry and laser scanning. ISPRS Journal
of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 54(23): 8394. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-
2716(99)00014-3.
Baltsavias E., Gruen A., Eisenbeiss H., Zhang L., Waser L.T. (2008). High-quality image matching
and automated generation of 3D tree models. International Journal of Remote Sensing 29(5):
12431259. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160701736513.
Beyer K., Goldstein J., Ramakrishnan R., Shaft U. (1999). When is nearest neighbor meaning-
ful? In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT 99),
January 10, 1999, Jerusalem, Israel. p. 217235. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49257-7_15.
Bohlin J., Wallerman J., Fransson J.E.S. (2012). Forest variable estimation using photogrammetric
matching of digital aerial images in combination with a high-resolution DEM. Scandinavian
Journal of Forest Research 27(7): 692699. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2012.686625.
Broadhurst D., Goodacre R., Jones A., Rowland J.J., Kell D.B. (1997). Genetic algorithms as a
method for variable selection in multiple linear regression and partial least squares regression,
18
with applications to pyrolysis mass spectrometry. Analytica Chimica Acta 348(13): 7186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(97)00065-2.
Bttner A., Rser H.-P. (2014). Hyperspectral remote sensing with the UAS Stuttgarter Adler
system setup, calibration and first results. Photogrammetrie Fernerkundung Geoinformation
2014(4): 265274. https://doi.org/10.1127/1432-8364/2014/0217.
Colomina I., Molina P. (2014). Unmanned aerial systems for photogrammetry and remote sens-
ing: a review. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 92: 7997. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.02.013.
Garey M.R., Johnson D.S. (1979). Computers and intractability; a guide to the theory of np-
completeness. W.H. Freeman & Co, New York, NY, USA.
Goetz A.F.H. (2009). Three decades of hyperspectral remote sensing of the Earth: a personal
view. Remote Sensing of Environment 113(SUPPL. 1): S5S16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rse.2007.12.014.
Gruen A., Li Z. (2002). Automatic DTM generation from Three-Line-Scanner (TLS) images.
International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 34: 131137.
Haala N., Hastedt H., Wolf K., Ressl C., Baltrusch S. (2010). Digital photogrammetric camera
evaluation generation of digital elevation models. Photogrammetrie Fernerkundung
Geoinformation 2010(2): 99115. https://doi.org/10.1127/1432-8364/2010/0043.
Hakala T., Honkavaara E., Saari H., Mkynen J., Kaivosoja J., Pesonen L., Plnen I. (2013).
Spectral imaging from uavs under varying illumination conditions. In: ISPRS International
Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Sep-
tember 4, 2013, Paris. p. 189194. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-1-W2-189-2013.
Haralick R.M. (1979). Statistical and structural approaches to texture. Proceedings of the IEEE
67(5): 786804. https://doi.org/10.1109/PROC.1979.11328.
Haralick R.M., Shanmugam K., Dinstein I. (1973). Textural features for image classification. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-3(6): 610621. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TSMC.1973.4309314.
Hinneburg A., Aggarwal C.C., Keim D.A. (2000). What is the nearest neighbor in high dimensional
spaces? In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Sep-
tember 10, 2000, San Francisco, CA, USA. p. 506515.
Honkavaara E., Saari H., Kaivosoja J., Plnen I., Hakala T., Litkey P., Mkynen J., Pesonen L.
(2013). Processing and assessment of spectrometric, stereoscopic imagery collected using a
lightweight uav spectral camera for precision agriculture. Remote Sensing 5(10): 50065039.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs5105006.
Hruska R., Mitchell J., Anderson M., Glenn N.F. (2012). Radiometric and geometric analysis
of hyperspectral imagery acquired from an unmanned aerial vehicle. Remote Sensing 4(9):
27362752. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs4092736.
Hyypp J., Pyysalo U., Hyypp H., Samberg A. (2000). Elevation accuracy of laser scanning-
derived digital terrain and target models in forest environment. In: Proceedings of EARSeL-
SIG-Workshop, June 14, 2000, Dresden. p. 139147.
Jrnstedt J., Pekkarinen A., Tuominen S., Ginzler C., Holopainen M., Viitala R. (2012). Forest
variable estimation using a high-resolution digital surface model. ISPRS Journal of Photo-
grammetry and Remote Sensing 74: 7884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2012.08.006.
Kilkki P., Pivinen R. (1987). Reference sample plots to combine field measurements and satellite
data in forest inventory. Department of Forest Mensuration and Management, University of
Helsinki, Research Notes 19. p. 210215.
Koh L.P., Wich S.A. (2012). Dawn of drone ecology: low-cost autonomous aerial vehi-
cles for conservation. Tropical Conservation Science 5(2): 121132. https://doi.
19
org/10.1177/194008291200500202.
Lillesand T.M., Kiefer R.W., Chipman J.W. (2004). Remote sensing and image interpretation (5th
ed.). John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY, USA. p. 763.
Lisein J., Pierrot-Deseilligny M., Bonnet S., Lejeune P. (2013). A photogrammetric workflow for
the creation of a forest canopy height model from small unmanned aerial system imagery.
Forests 4(4): 922944. https://doi.org/10.3390/f4040922.
Lucieer A., Malenovsk Z., Veness T., Wallace L. (2014). HyperUAS imaging spectroscopy from
a multirotor unmanned aircraft system. Journal of Field Robotics 31(4): 571590. https://doi.
org/10.1002/rob.21508.
Mkynen J., Holmlund C., Saari H., Ojala K., Antila T. (2011). Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
operated megapixel spectral camera. Proceedings of SPIE 8186: 81860Y. https://doi.
org/10.1117/12.897712.
Maltamo M., Malinen J., Packaln P., Suvanto A., Kangas J. (2006). Nonparametric estimation
of stem volume using airborne laser scanning, aerial photography, and stand-register data.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36(2): 426436. https://doi.org/10.1139/x05-246.
Moser P., Vibrans A.C., McRoberts R.E., Nsset E., Gobakken T., Chirici G., Mura M., Marchetti
M. (2017). Methods for variable selection in LiDAR-assisted forest inventories. Forestry 90(1):
112124. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpw041.
Muinonen E., Tokola T. (1990). An application of remote sensing for communal forest inventory.
In: Proceedings from SNS/IUFRO Workshop, 1990, Ume. p. 3542.
Nsset E. (2002). Predicting forest stand characteristics with airborne scanning laser using a
practical two-stage procedure and field data. Remote Sensing of Environment 80(1): 8899.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00290-5.
Nsset E. (2004). Accuracy of forest inventory using airborne laser scanning: evaluating the first
nordic full-scale operational project. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 19(6): 554557.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02827580410019544.
Nevalainen O., Honkavaara E., Tuominen S., Viljanen N., Hakala T., Yu X., Hyypp J., Saari H.,
Plnen I., Imai N., Tommaselli A. (2017). Individual tree detection and classification with
UAV-based photogrammetric point clouds and hyperspectral imaging. Remote Sensing 9(3):
Packaln P., Maltamo M. (2006). Predicting the plot volume by tree species using airborne laser
scanning and aerial photographs. Forest Science 52(6): 611622.
Packaln P., Maltamo M. (2007). The k-MSN method for the prediction of species-specific stand
attributes using airborne laser scanning and aerial photographs. Remote Sensing of Environ-
ment 109(3): 328341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2007.01.005.
Packaln P., Maltamo M. (2008). Estimation of species-specific diameter distributions using
airborne laser scanning and aerial photographs. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38(7):
17501760. https://doi.org/10.1139/X08-037.
Puliti S., rka H.O., Gobakken T., Nsset E. (2015). Inventory of small forest areas using an
unmanned aerial system. Remote Sensing 7(8): 96329654. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs70809632.
Pyysalo U. (2000). A method to create a three dimensional forest model from laser scanner data.
Photogrammetric Journal of Finland 17(1): 3442.
R Development Core Team. (2016). R: a language and environment for statistical computing.
Vienna, Austria. https://www.r-project.org. [Cited 2 March 2017].
Saari H., Pellikka I., Pesonen L., Tuominen S., Heikkil J., Holmlund C., Mkynen J., Ojala K.,
Antila T. (2011). Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) operated spectral camera system for forest
and agriculture applications. In: Proceedings of SPIE, October 6, 2011, Prague. p. 81740H.
https://doi.org/10.1117/12.897585.
20
St-Onge B., Vega C., Fournier R.A., Hu Y. (2008). Mapping canopy height using a combination
of digital stereo-photogrammetry and lidar. International Journal of Remote Sensing 29(11):
33433364. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160701469040.
Stepper C., Straub C., Immitzer M., Pretzsch H. (2016). Using canopy heights from digital aerial
photogrammetry to enable spatial transfer of forest attribute models: a case study in central
Europe. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 114. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.
2016.1261935.
Suomalainen J., Anders N., Iqbal S., Roerink G., Franke J., Wenting P., Hnniger D., Bartholomeus
H., Becker R., Kooistra L. (2014). A lightweight hyperspectral mapping system and photogram-
metric processing chain for unmanned aerial vehicles. Remote Sensing 6 (11): 1101311030.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs61111013.
Tomppo E. (1991). Satellite image-based national forest inventory of Finland. International Archives
of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 28: 419424.
Trm M. (2000). Estimation of tree species proportions of forest stands using laser scanning.
International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 33(Part B7): 15241531.
Tuominen S., Haapanen R. (2011). Comparison of grid-based and segment-based estimation of
forest attributes using airborne laser scanning and digital aerial imagery. Remote Sensing 3(5):
Tuominen S., Haapanen R. (2013). Estimation of forest biomass by means of genetic algo-
rithm-based optimization of airborne laser scanning and digital aerial photograph features.
Silva Fennica 47(1) article 902. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.902.
Tuominen S., Pitknen J., Balazs A., Korhonen K.T., Hyvnen P., Muinonen E. (2014). NFI plots
as complementary reference data in forest inventory based on airborne laser scanning and
aerial photography in Finland. Silva Fennica 48(2) article 983. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.983.
Tuominen S., Balazs A., Saari H., Plnen I., Sarkeala J., Viitala R. (2015). Unmanned aerial
system imagery and photogrammetric canopy height data in area-based estimation of forest
variables. Silva Fennica 49(5) article 1348. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.1348.
Ullah S., Dees M., Datta P., Adler P., Koch B. (2017) Comparing airborne laser scanning, and
image-based point clouds by semi-global matching and enhanced automatic terrain extraction
to estimate forest timber volume. Forests 8(6): 215. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8060215.
Vauhkonen J., Tokola T., Packaln P., Maltamo M. (2009). Identification of scandinavian commer-
cial species of individual trees from airborne laser scanning data using alpha shape metrics.
Forest Science 55(1): 3747.
Waser L.T., Ginzler C., Kuechler M., Baltsavias E., Hurni L. (2011). Semi-automatic classification
of tree species in different forest ecosystems by spectral and geometric variables derived from
Airborne Digital Sensor (ADS40) and RC30 data. Remote Sensing of Environment 115(1):
7685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.08.006.
White J.C., Wulder M.A., Vastaranta M., Coops N.C., Pitt D., Woods M. (2013). The utility of
image-based point clouds for forest inventory: a comparison with airborne laser scanning.
Forests 4(3): 518536. https://doi.org/10.3390/f4030518.
Willighagen E., Ballings M. (2015). genalg: R based genetic algorithm. https://cran.r-project.org/
web/packages/genalg/index.html. [Cited 2 March 2017].
Zarco-Tejada P.J., Gonzlez-Dugo V., Berni J.A.J. (2012). Fluorescence, temperature and nar-
row-band indices acquired from a UAV platform for water stress detection using a micro-hy-
perspectral imager and a thermal camera. Remote Sensing of Environment 117: 322337.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.10.007.
Total of 58 references.
21

This Is An Electronic Reprint of The Original Article. This Reprint May Differ From The Original in Pagination and Typographic Detail

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This Is An Electronic Reprint of The Original Article. This Reprint May Differ From The Original in Pagination and Typographic Detail

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

This Is An Electronic Reprint of The Original Article. This Reprint May Differ From The Original in Pagination and Typographic Detail

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.

Title: Hyperspectral UAV-imagery and photogrammetric canopy height model in estimating

Version: Publisher's PDF

Please cite the original version:

Sakari Tuominen1, Andras Balazs1, Eija Honkavaara2, Ilkka Plnen3, Heikki

Hyperspectral UAV-imagery and photogrammetric

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Study area and field data

Total volume, m3 ha1 329.8 1160.8 33.2 220.5

2.2 Aerial imagery

Fig. 1. Location of the study area.

Fig. 3. Distribution of field plots in relation to growing stock volume.

v01 26.6 11:07 to 11:23 cloudy 50.91 199.22 2602 10 94

N images Reproj. N images Reproj. Pointcloud

v01 7 714 0.70 291 0.84 484

A hyperspectral camera based on a tuneable Fabry-Prot interferometer (FPI) (Mkynen

2.3 Geometric and radiometric processing of images

2.3.1 Geometric processing

2.3.2 Radiometric processing

2.3.3 Mosaic calculation

2.4 Extraction of remote sensing features

2.5 Feature selection and estimation of forest variables

yi = measured value of variable y on plot i

Table 5a. Estimation results, non-calibrated HS-mosaic, common features.

D 3 2.6 18.32 2.17 7 9 1 17

Table 5b. Estimation results, non-calibrated HS-mosaic, individual features.

D 5 0.7 14.71 0.52 4 11 0 15

Table 5c. Estimation results, calibrated HS-mosaic, common features.

D 5 2.9 19.19 1.76 9 6 1 16

Table 5d. Estimation results, calibrated HS-mosaic, individual features.

D 5 2.0 15.20 1.76 4 8 0 12

vol.pine 5 3 40.63 0.43 9 12 3 24

You might also like