| Literature DB >> 28417324 |
Anthea L Mitchell1, Ake Rosenqvist2, Brice Mora3.
Abstract
Forest degradation is a global phenomenon and while being an important indicator and precursor to further forest loss, carbon emissions due to degradation should also be accounted for in national reporting within the frame of UN REDD+. At regional to country scales, methods have been progressively developed to detect and map forest degradation, with these based on multi-resolution optical, synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and/or LiDAR data. However, there is no one single method that can be applied to monitor forest degradation, largely due to the specific nature of the degradation type or process and the timeframe over which it is observed. The review assesses two main approaches to monitoring forest degradation: first, where detection is indicated by a change in canopy cover or proxies, and second, the quantification of loss (or gain) in above ground biomass (AGB). The discussion only considers degradation that has a visible impact on the forest canopy and is thus detectable by remote sensing. The first approach encompasses methods that characterise the type of degradation and track disturbance, detect gaps in, and fragmentation of, the forest canopy, and proxies that provide evidence of forestry activity. Progress in these topics has seen the extension of methods to higher resolution (both spatial and temporal) data to better capture the disturbance signal, distinguish degraded and intact forest, and monitor regrowth. Improvements in the reliability of mapping methods are anticipated by SAR-optical data fusion and use of very high resolution data. The second approach exploits EO sensors with known sensitivity to forest structure and biomass and discusses monitoring efforts using repeat LiDAR and SAR data. There has been progress in the capacity to discriminate forest age and growth stage using data fusion methods and LiDAR height metrics. Interferometric SAR and LiDAR have found new application in linking forest structure change to degradation in tropical forests. Estimates of AGB change have been demonstrated at national level using SAR and LiDAR-assisted approaches. Future improvements are anticipated with the availability of next generation LiDAR sensors. Improved access to relevant satellite data and best available methods are key to operational forest degradation monitoring. Countries will need to prioritise their monitoring efforts depending on the significance of the degradation, balanced against available resources. A better understanding of the drivers and impacts of degradation will help guide monitoring and restoration efforts. Ultimately we want to restore ecosystem service and function in degraded forests before the change is irreversible.Entities:
Keywords: Above-ground biomass; Carbon emissions; Degradation; Disturbance; Forests; Measurement reporting and verification; Monitoring; REDD+; Time-series
Year: 2017 PMID: 28417324 PMCID: PMC5393981 DOI: 10.1186/s13021-017-0078-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Carbon Balance Manag ISSN: 1750-0680
Fig. 1The global forest condition [68], as visualised using satellite derived and modelled current and potential forest cover [88]
Summary of approaches to forest degradation monitoring
| Method | LiDAR | Optical | SAR | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mapping approach | Dense time-series tracking | Change detection | Vegetation indices | Data transforms | Spectral Mixture Analysis | Classification | Interferometry | Modelling | Data fusion | Visual interpretation | ICESat GLAS | Airborne LiDAR | MODIS | CBERS | Landsat | SPOT | Sentinel-2 | RapidEye | Quickbird | IKONOS | ALOS-1/2 PALSAr-1/2 | ENVISAT ASAR | SRTM | TerraSAR-X | TanDEM-X | Cosmo-SkyMed | GeoSAR |
| (1) Detection and characterisation of degradation type | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Forest disturbance mapping | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Identification of canopy gaps | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Proxies | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (2) Quantification of carbon stock changes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tracking of secondary and degraded forest dynamics | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Canopy height change | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AGB change | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
aScale: ‘N’ National, ‘R’ Regional
Fig. 2TerraSAR-X Spotlight imagery (Oct 2013 in red, Jan 2014 in cyan) and automated change mapping result for Calha Norte, Brazil, showing removal of individual trees through detection of disappearing tree crowns (red) and radar shadows (cyan); Courtesy of [36]
Fig. 3Use of multi-temporal LiDAR to quantify canopy height and AGB dynamics in tropical peatland forest: a Transect through burnt and adjacent undisturbed peat swamp forest. b Changes in canopy height and AGB associated with different forest conditions; and photographs of c burnt forest, d transition area and e undisturbed forest (Courtesy of [16])
Operational readiness of current EO sensors for monitoring forest degradation
| Degradation type | Resolution | Data source | Mode (optimal) | Sensor (Launch date) | Geographical data coverage | Methods developed and tested | Large area demonstrations | Country operational examples |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Broad-scale degradation | Moderate | Optical | VNIR-SWIR | Landsat (1972-) | Yes | Y | Y | Y |
| Landsat-8 (2013-) | ||||||||
| L-band | DP (10 m) | ALOS-2 PALSAR (2014-) | Global 2 obs year−1; | Y | Y | N | ||
| DP (50 m) | Tropical 9 obs year−1 | |||||||
| C-band | SP (20 m) | Sentinel-1A/1B (2014-/2016-) | Global, monthly or better (aS1 BOS) | Y | N | N | ||
| DP | RADARSAT-2 (2007-) | Requests required | ||||||
| High | Optical | VNIR-SWIR | Sentinel-2 (2015-) | (aS2 BOS) | Y | N | N | |
| X-band | SM | TerraSAR-X (2007-) | Requests required | Y | N | N | ||
| Fine-scale degradation | VHR | Optical | VNIR-SWIR | GeoEye (2008-) | Global (heterogeneous) | Y | N | N |
| X-band | SM/SL | TerraSAR-X (2007-) | Requests required | Y | N | N | ||
| X-band | 3D TDM | TanDEM-X (2011-) | Global (2 times) | Y | N | N | ||
| LiDAR (airborne) | Full waveform | N/A | No | Y | Y | N |
aBaseline observation scenario (BOS) for Sentinel-2: systematic observation over Europe, Africa and Greenland; other land surfaces every 20 days; BOS for Sentinel-1 IW: Forestry and Agriculture Priority areas, every 12–24 days