Ecological Informatics 70 (2022) 101748

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Informatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolinf

Using multi-temporal tree inventory data in eucalypt forestry to benchmark

global high-resolution canopy height models. A showcase in Mato
Grosso, Brazil
Adrián Pascual a, *, Frederico Tupinambá-Simões b, c, Tiago de Conto a
a
Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, United States of America
b
Universidad de Valladolid, UVA University Institute for Research in Sustainable Forest Management, Palencia 34004, Spain
c
Sustainable Forest Management Research Institute UVa-INIA, Avda. Madrid 50, 34071 Palencia, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The global monitoring of forest structure worldwide is increasingly being supported by refined and enhanced
Tree height satellite mission datasets. Forest canopy height is a global metric to characterise and monitor dynamics in forest
Remote sensing ecosystems worldwide. Satellite mapping missions as NASA’s Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI)
Calibration
are creating opportunities to refine global forest canopy height models adding forest structural information to
Forest mapping
Tropical forestry
time-series satellite imagery. A recent global canopy height model presented by Lang et al., (2022) using GEDI
and 10-m Sentinel-2 and the map from Potapov et al., (2020) using GEDI and Landsat are both tested in this study
using multi-temporal tree-level data collected over eucalypt plantations in Brazil. Our results at plot-level
showed Lang et al., (2022)’s estimates of canopy height came short compared to 2020 maximum and mean
tree height records in the plots, 7.6 and 3.6 m, respectively, but adding CHM standard deviation improves the
agreement of ground records for maximum tree height. Higher errors were computed for the plots in 2019 using
the Potapov’s 30-m CHM: 14.2 and 9.5 m, respectively. Averaged stand values were more similar between the
three sources tested. We report improvement from the 30-m CHM to the 10-m, but still height saturation
problems were observed when accounting for height differences in tall eucalypt trees. As more global products
for forest height and biomass are becoming available to users, more validation exercises as presented in this study
are needed to assess the suitability of CHM products to forestry needs, and facilitate the uptake and actionability
of the next generation of global height and biomass products. We provide recommendations and insights on the
use of GEDI laser data for global mapping and on the potential of commercial forestry areas to benchmark the
accuracy of satellite mapping missions focusing on tree height estimation in the tropics.

1. Introduction
Measuring forest canopy height using remote sensing observations is
a timely and global-scale research topic constantly evolving from the
assimilation of new sources of remote sensing data (Asner et al., 2013;
Duncanson et al., 2019). Time series of satellite imagery and ground
observations have been used to map forest canopy height across the
globe (e.g., Hansen et al., 2013). The top-oh-height of forest vegetation
is usually represented in two-dimensions as a gridded product called
canopy height model (CHM) where pixel/raster cell estimates represent
the average top-of-tree height for each pixel. Remote sensing data
collected from active sensors such as LiDAR or SAR are solid approaches
on which to rely the estimation on 3D forest attributes globally – alone
or combined with satellite imagery (e.g., Asner et al., 2013; Pardini
et al., 2019; Qi et al., 2019). One the most discussed solutions in CHM
during the last years is the 2019 map from Potapov et al. (2020) using
Landsat-8 time-series and NASA’s GEDI full waveform three-
dimensional laser data to produce a global, 30-m resolution CHM. The
spaceborne lidar technology from GEDI represents a major step forward
in the characterization of forest ecosystems as the mission is specifically
designed to collect 3D data for global canopy height estimation and
aboveground biomass density (Dubayah et al., 2020b; Duncanson et al.,
2022). Relative height metrics from GEDI full waveforms can be gridded
to conform global CHM using different techniques means and sources of
satellite imagery as showcased by Potapov et al. (2020).
The product from Potapov et al. (2020) used a limited sampling

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: apascual@umd.edu (A. Pascual).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101748
Received 27 May 2022; Received in revised form 23 June 2022; Accepted 9 July 2022
Available online 18 July 2022
1574-9541/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Pascual et al.
catalog of the GEDI mission for year 2019 using version 001 of GEDI
observations, FILLIN ""whose mean ground geo-location error could
exceed 10 m (Dubayah et al., 2020b). Since then and until mission is
completed by the end of 2023, the geo-location of GEDI footprints is
being improved along successive releases of GEDI mission products.
Estimates of forest canopy height and aboveground carbon density
(AGBD) for >10 billion footprints are to be collected along the lifespan
of the GEDI mission (Dubayah et al., 2020b). These laser footprints
collecting forest structure data can be then gridded, considering
geographic regions and plant functional types (PFT), to compose global
CHM for the case of forest canopy height. As the current GEDI version
002 is publicly available and it reduces the geo-location error substan­
tially (below 5 m) from data version 001, further refinements have
margin to improve the quality of earlier CHM products (Roy et al.,
2021). Depending on the scale of geo-location errors, these could
severely impact the statistical relationships between laser footprint data
and both satellite imagery and ground reference data. New solutions in
CHM and AGBD modelling should then integrate GEDI laser data under
version 002 to limit the influence of co-registration errors. Climate
conditions or plant functional types are two other factors that can
impact the quality of CHM as documented in Potapov et al. (2020) and
other previous studies, especially for the case of tall trees – under­
estimated when using optical remote sensing data in the statistical
inference. The problem, referred to as height saturation in the field of
forest mapping, is a concern when assessing carbon stocks in tropical
forests as large, tall trees yielding high AGBD stocks might be under-
estimated (e.g., Mitchard et al., 2014; Urbazaev et al., 2015). Several
studies have reported on this limitation (Lang et al., 2022a; Silva et al.,
2021) and hence, new refinements on forest canopy height estimation
have been proposed (Healey et al., 2020; Lang et al., 2022b).
The study from Lang et al. (2022b) is one of the latest and most so­
phisticated refinements on global CHM and it tackles the afore-said
needs unresolved in earlier attempts (e.g., Potapov et al., 2020). The
product from Lang et al. (2022b) uses GEDI laser data and satellite image
spectroscopy data but at a fine-grained 10-m resolution using Sentinel-2
(S2) FILLIN ""imagery as support. The expected improvements in the 10-
m CHM product are the result of using a larger portfolio of GEDI data
collected under enhanced geo-location conditions, and giving more
weight to tall trees when designing an approach based on convolutional
neural network (Fayad et al., 2021a: Lang et al., 2022b). The statistical
relationship between metrics from GEDI full waveforms metric and S1
10-m pixels was based on quality filters and on the proximity between
GEDI 25-m footprint center locations and pixels from S1 imagery (Lang
et al., 2022b). The temporal scope of the 10-m CHM product is set by the
authors to years 2019 and 2020. For the purpose of auditing and testing
different CHM products, independent and temporally coincident data
sources such as tree-level measurements are useful for benchmarking
(Andersen et al., 2006), and to confirm the hypothesized improvement
in the estimation of height for tall trees and specifically over regions
where moisture-saturated conditions are common such as in the tropics
(Healey et al., 2020).
Forest plantations in the tropics bring then opportunities for forest
height mapping by providing fast-growing conditions from which to
model growth dynamics or effects of climate change episodes (Pascual
et al., 2022). In terms of geolocation accuracy, homogenous and well-
defined annual plantation units reduce geolocation uncertainty when
using GEDI laser footprints (Fayad et al., 2021a). Regarding data peri­
odicity and the overlap with satellite missions’ data, fast-growing spe­
cies can help to validate simultaneous satellite missions taking place
such as IceSat-2, NASA’s GEDI or the coming NISAR (Duncanson et al.,
2019; Guerra-Hernández and Pascual, 2021). Fast-growing plantations
can help to refine tree and forest canopy height mapping at different
scales from tree- and plot-level estimates to homogenous stand defined
by annual units where estimates of AGBD stocking are accurate and
management operations traceable (Fayad et al., 2021a; Guerra-
Hernández and Pascual, 2021; Milenković et al., 2022).
2
Ecological Informatics 70 (2022) 101748
The purpose of this study is to FILLIN ""evaluate the suitability of
relevant global CHM products, Potapov et al. (2020)’s and Lang et al.
(2022a, 2022b), to estimate forest top-of-canopy height. The study area
for this assessment is in Mato Grosso, Brazil, over 1400 ha of commercial
eucalypt forestry previously used to monitor the effects of climate
change on tree mortality (Pascual et al., 2022; Tupinambá-Simões et al.,
2022). For this study, >10,000 tree height measurements between 2018
and 2020 were used to assess the suitability of the latest 10-m CHM
product and to measure the improvement from the earlier 30-m CHM
product. The exercise was carried out in challenging conditions: fast-
growing, tall trees in the tropics. The refinement of global CHM prod­
ucts is gaining momentum towards the inclusion of 3D structural data,
and this has important synergies towards sustainability and conserva­
tion (Cordell et al., 2017; Csillik et al., 2019; Laclau et al., 2013), the
mapping of forest AGBD based on tree structural variables (Duncanson
et al., 2022) and ongoing satellite mapping missions such as Norway’s
International Climate & Forests Initiative (NICFI) Planet tropical mo­
saics - releasing monthly image mosaics to enforce land-use monitoring
in tropical forest ecosystems.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Study area and multi-annual mortality surveys
The pilot area is Tangará da Serra, a rural area Mato Grosso state in
Brazil (Fig. 1). The showcase research area is a 1400-ha mosaic of
planted eucalypt stands (57) showing 13 annual classes. Spacing,
stocking and clone selection varies across the site: E. urograndis, E.
urophylla x E. grandis, E. urophylla and E. camaldulensis x E. grandis are the
four clone selections. The site follows an intense management and a
close monitoring: The area was severely affected by a drought in 2019
affecting growth conditions and lower tree survival rates as observed for
the 2018–2020 campaigns (Tupinambá-Simões et al., 2022). We used
ground data from the 2019–2021 to cover the temporal range defined by
Lang et al. (2022a, 2022b)’s CHM build at 10-m resolution later
described. Field campaigns began on April 1st and June 1st for 2019 and
2020, respectively, and they were both completed in a month (see
Supplementary for an extended footage of the field data collection
including aerial overviews collected with a commercial-grade drone).
The dataset included a total of 13,347 tree height measurements and
120 plots measured in 2019 and 2020 located within 57 stands. Trees
whose height was not measured in the fields (19,738) were predicted
from a local-calibrated model using diameter at breast height (dbh, cm)
as predictor (Tupinambá-Simões et al., 2022). Plots (18-m radius)
approximately accounts for 10 raster cells of Lang et al. (2022a, 2022b)
global CHM. Tall-tree conditions were represented in most of the large
stands for which, on average, comprised 4–5 sample plots. A grid of 18-
m side was created for the plantation and a 20-m buffer was used to filter
out sampling locations over and close edges between stands. From the
set of possible sampling locations within the boundaries of each stand,
random sampling was used to select the minimum number of plots to be
measured as determine by private forestry guidelines for the site and to
meet the desirable sampling intensity.
2.2. Global 30-m canopy height modelling
Landsat multi-temporal metrics and the 95th relative height from
GEDI full waveforms were used to compose a 30-m CHM globally
(Potapov et al., 2020). The team at the University of Maryland has made
the FILLIN ""map available here. Selected GEDI orbits ranged from
(April–October 2019), same starting date as the 2019 ground campaign.
From these FILLIN ""GEDI observations, metrics on surface topography,
canopy height and cover, and vertical structure can be extracted.
Textural metrics from satellite images are good indicators of land uses
while GEDI L2A metrics add forest structural information. The map has
known issues regarding height saturation and authors report the value of
A. Pascual et al.
Fig. 1. Location of the study area in Mato Grosso (a) showing the stand boundaries and Planet NICFI tropical basemaps (May–June 2020 mosaic is represented) using
false-colour vegetation to highlight vegetation area outside the study area within stand boundaries.
30-m as height-break for which the estimation is biased towards tall
trees (Potapov et al., 2020). We included the 2019 CHM from Potapov
et al. (2020) into the assessment to benchmark the expected improve­
ment in the newest global CHM map: the product from Lang et al.
(2022a) which provides estimates of CHM and the associated uncer­
tainty (Fig. 2), expressed by the standard deviation product, to all 10-m
raster cells globally (Fig. 3)
2.3. Global 10-m canopy height modelling
The global CHM for Lang et al. (2022a, 2022b) builds upon previous
global forest height mapping guidelines (Hansen et al., 2013; Potapov
et al., 2020) and combines GEDI L2A relative height 98 (RH98) of forest
canopy height computed for track of 25-m ground footprints with raw
satellite images from S2 constellation from the European Space Agency
(ESA). The temporal scope of the product ranged from April to August in
2019 and 2020. The spatial alignment between discrete GEDI footprints
and S2 mosaics was done for 600 million samples, and those samples
were defined as follows: “the sparse GEDI data is rasterized to the
Sentinel-2 10-meter grid by setting the pixel corresponding to the center
of each GEDI footprint to the associated footprint height” (Lang et al.,
2022b). The statistical inference was based on deep learning methods by
means of a convolutional approach (CNN). The 2020 CHM build upon
previous studies on global mapping using sophisticated machine
learning techniques (Fayad et al., 2021b; Lang et al., 2022a). The
emphasis in this recent product was placed on addressing the saturation
effect for canopy heights above 25 m (Healey et al., 2020) – here tested
with tree-level data as it was claimed by the authors as a main
improvement from the 30-m CHM model tested here indeed. An esti­
mation of uncertainty for each 10-m raster cell (Fig. 3) accompanies
3
Ecological Informatics 70 (2022) 101748
each CHM estimate to account and inform user of the reliability of
predicted height estimates. We used these two layers, publicly available,
to compare real measured data collected from eucalypt forestry assets at
two scales: plot and stand levels.
2.4. Assessment of global canopy height estimates
Sample plot locations and stand boundaries were used to extract
FILLIN ""mean and maximum height values for the two 10-m CHM raster
available from Lang et al. (2022b) - model estimate and model uncer­
tainty expressed as standard deviation (SD) - and the CHM estimate from
Potapov et al. (2020). The spatial layout of the two products over the
boundaries and inner divisions of the test area are presented in Fig. 3 for
the 10-m resolution products as showcases. The maximum measured
tree height (hmax) and the mean tree height (hmean) were compared for
each year to the maximum (Hmax) and mean (Hmean) value of the CHM
raster estimate on each plot for year 2019 using Potapov et al. (2020)
and for year 2020 using Lang et al. (2022b). The average values of hmax
and hmean w FILLIN ""ere computed for each individual stand and for
each annual rotation class. For the case of Hmax and Hmean, boundaries
were used to extract summary statistics for stands and annual rotation
units.
To compare prediction uncertainty, we compared only at plot level
using the SD of all measured tree heights in the plots (hstd) and the mean
raster value of SD for each plot (Hstd) from the 10-m product from Lang
et al. (2022b). Preliminary tests showed low co-variance of CHM esti­
mates and SD values within 18-m-plot boundaries as expected in forest
plantation conditions. Measurements on tree height were modelled
using mean and maximum values from both CHM products tested.
We used simple linear regression modelling to explain the
A. Pascual et al. Ecological Informatics 70 (2022) 101748

Fig. 2. Representation of the 30-m canopy height model (CHM) from Potapov et al. (2020) over the showcase area showing stand boundaries and permanent sample
locations. Ground campaign from 2019 was used for the assessment (a). Same for the 10-m CHM from Lang et al. (2022b) showing more clearly the locations of the
sample plots (b).

relationships between measured values of mean and maximum tree • Models 1–2 compute model error fixing the intercept and slope to
height at plot level. At stand level, we aggregated plot values to estimate explain measured mean and maximum tree height, hmax and hmean,
mean and maximum tree height in the stand. The explanation of the respectively, using as predictor variables the corresponding mean
models presented in Table 1 is as follows: and maximum value on each two CHM rasters here compared.

4
A. Pascual et al. Ecological Informatics 70 (2022) 101748

Fig. 3. Spatial layout and distribution of estimates of canopy height model (CHM) from Lang et al. (2022b) and the associated standard deviation (SD) for each 10-m
CHM pixels.

• Model 3: the difference between estimated and measured maximum

Table 1
height in the plots was explained by using the latter as a categorical
Models to test Potapov et al. (2020) 30-m and Lang et al. (2022b)’s 10-m canopy
predictor rather than as a continuous variable. We used 5-m intervals
height models.
to model the deviation in height between measurements and esti­
Model Formula Parameters mates from the CHM products (h5m max). The coefficients from the
1 hmax~β0 + β1Hmax + ε β0 = 0 β1 = 1 model fitting were used to interpret differences between height
2 hmean~β0 + β1Hmean + ε β0 = 0 β1 = 1 classes and test whether saturation persists for tall trees or not.
3 hmax~β0 + β1 h5m β0 = 0 f (OLS)
max + ε
• Model 4 was designed for Lang et al. (2022a, 2022b) product as the
β1 =
4 hmax~β0 + β1 (Hmax + Hstd) + ε β0 = 0 β1 = f (OLS)
model combines as a single predictor the sum of the average CHM
*β1 coefficients can be fixed or optimized using ordinary least squares (OLS) in uncertainty for each plot and the maximum height value for each
regression modelling. plot. We outlined Model 4 aiming to maximize the usability of the
existing SD product that informs on uncertainty for each 10-m cell.

5
A. Pascual et al. Ecological Informatics 70 (2022) 101748

The model fitting results for Model 4 can confirm whether or not this
sub-product can be useful to better align estimated heights to
measured maximum tree height (hmax).
3. Results
3.1. Field data on tree height and stand canopy height
The distribution of tree height measurements for the three surveys
showed similar tendencies for mean and maximum tree height. Most of
the maximum tree height values were above the 25–30 m threshold in
the plots- meeting the conditions for testing the expected improvement
in height saturation to assess CHM products (Fig. 4).
3.2. Plot-level assessment of 30-m CHM estimates
The mean difference between measured maximum tree height and
the maximum value of the 30-CHM product for the 120 plots measured
in year 2019 was 14.12 m. For mean tree height, the value was 9.51 m.
In terms of RMSE for Model 1 and Model 2, the values reached 15.34 and
11.27 m, respectively, which represent 50.0% and 34.7% when
expressed as relative RMSE. Trends for both variables are quite consis­
tent when comparing absolute values and when accounting for differ­
ences (Fig. 5). Model coefficients in Table 2 showed an error increasing
systematic difference between field observations and 30-m CHM values
for tall canopy height values.

Fig. 4. Distribution of measured maximum (grey) and mean tree height (blue) in the 2019–2021 annual surveys (displayed from left to right). Tree measurements
were computed for plots, and these were re-scaled to stand values. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)

6
A. Pascual et al. Ecological Informatics 70 (2022) 101748

Fig. 5. Height estimate and differences at plot-level between measurements in the 2019 campaign (y-axis) and canopy height model (CHM) estimates in the x-axis
from Potapov et al. (2020). A set of 120 plots measured in 2019 were used.

Table 2
Model 3 fitting statistics and coefficient values for the maximum height 5-m classes.
Height class 30-m Canopy Height Model 10-m Canopy Height Model

Potapov et al. (2020) Lang et al. (2022b)

Height class Estimate Std. t Pr (>|t|) Estimate Std. t Pr (>|t|)

β2 Error value β2 Error value

10–15 1.025 2.580 0.397 0.692 4.734 1.869 2.534 0.01248*

15–20 9.525 1.490 6.394 3.59e-09 *** 4.586 1.999 2.294 0.02339*
20–25 14.603 0.860 16.979 <2e-16*** 4.01 1.413 2.840 0.00524**
25–30 14.328 0.737 19.437 <2e-16*** 11.365 1.037 10.959 <2e-16***
30–35 18.316 1.184 15.471 <2e-16*** 5.647 0.741 7.626 4.66e-12***
35–40 – – – – 10.346 1.037 9.976 <2e-16***
40–45 – – – – 14.200 2.644 5.370 3.54e-07***
*
Significance level at p < 0.01.
**
Significance level at p < 0.005.
***
Significance level at p < 0.001.

3.3. Plot-level assessment of 10-m CHM estimates
The 2019–2021 field surveys showed the effect of temporal
mismatch in the 10-m CHM designed for year 2020: some plots were
harvested in 2019 and 2021 (Fig. 6). Hence, we narrowed the assess­
ment to the 2020 ground campaign as dependent predictor in the set of
models. The RMSE was 9.52 m for Model 1 (hmax) and 7.21 m for Model
2 (hmean). In terms of model error, the values for relative RMSE were
32.2% and 28.5%, respectively. Model fitting results for Model 3 showed
the difference between measured hmax and estimated Hmax was the
largest for height classes 25–30 m and for the two classes between 35
and 45 m as derived from Model 3 coefficients and their significance
(Table 2).
The results for Model 4 showed the improvement in the relationship
between measured and estimated values for maximum tree height in the
plots when accounting for estimates of uncertainty (Fig. 7). Adding the
available uncertainty of each pixel to the prediction decreased the RMSE
from 9.52 m in Model 1 to 6.4 m for Model 4. Indeed, the mean differ­
ence between measured hmax and (Hmax + Hstd) computed from Lang
et al. (2022b)’s CHM was zero in the plot training data. In this regard,
some plots around the 25–30 m height class showed low estimated
values of both Hmax and Hmean comparing to the corresponding measured
variable, hmax and hmean, respectively. Those plots showed low values -
and sometimes zero - for 10-m estimates of uncertainty(Hstd), lowering
the overall good performance of Model 4 and mitigating the improve­
ment for the entire set of plots when compared to Models 1–2 in terms of

7
A. Pascual et al. Ecological Informatics 70 (2022) 101748

Fig. 6. Relationship between measured maximum tree height in the samples for 2019, 2020 and 2021 (x-axis) and the maximum value of the 10-m canopy height
model from Lang et al. (2022a, 2022b) (y-axis).

Fig. 7. Relationship between 2020 Lang et al. (2022b) canopy height model (CHM) at plot-level and measured tree maximum and mean height in the plots (Model 1,
left). One standard deviation (SD) was added to the CHM estimate for each plot to improve model fitting (Model 4, right).

8
A. Pascual et al. Ecological Informatics 70 (2022) 101748

RMSE reduction. 4. Discussion

3.4. Standard deviation of tree canopy estimates
The SD of tree height measurement was constant along the three
years: the mean values for hstd were 2.12 m for 2019 campaign, 2.29 m
for 2020 and 2.32 m for year 2021. These field-based measurements of
SD represent a third of the SD estimated using the 10-m CHM product
using samples: mean standard deviation (Hstd) was 6.84 m, on average,
with a maximum of 7.11 m and a low standard deviation of 21 cm.
Hence, the estimated variability of tree canopy heights was a third of
what Lang et al. (2022a, 2022b) predicted at plot-level. The variability
of SD estimates within stand boundaries was 1.01 m on average for the
57 stands, ranging from 0.4 m to a maximum of 3.7 m in areas coloured
in dark green (Fig. 3). Low SD values for the 10-m product were expected
as preliminary suggested by plot-level values and considering the even-
aged conditions of stands in the study. FILLIN ""We identified the
occurrence of edge effects between forest and non-forest areas by
checking NICFI tropical basemaps along the contours of stand bound­
aries (Fig. 8).
The assessment presented here evaluates the suitability of global
CHM for the purpose of operational needs in commercial forestry.
Despite the challenging fast-growing conditions and the broad global
scope of both CHM tested here, the agreement on forest canopy height is
remarkable under Model 4 when using the 10-m CHM product while
adding estimates of SD. Under those conditions, we observed a good
relationship between field data collected in year 2020 and Lang et al.
(2022b) global CHM scoped for year 2020. Beyond the precision of CHM
estimates for the training area and the benchmarking numbers in this
assessment, it is important to express some considerations regarding the
statistical methods behind CHM estimates for both CHM products here
benchmarked.
The product from Lang et al. (2022b) is a major and outstanding
contribution to forest mapping science. Authors were able to fuse GEDI
full waveforms metric relative height 98 (RH98) with satellite imagery to
produce a fine-grained map of forest canopy height through the asso­
ciation of GEDI discrete observations (25-m footprints) to adjacent
pixels of 10-m S1 satellite image mosaics. The novel 10-m CHM product
and the approach for connecting GEDI shots and imagery is tested here
using eucalypt plantation data overlapping in time and space, and
further compared to the 30-m res baseline CHM product – which we

Fig. 8. Standard deviation map of CHM estimates from Lang et al. (2022b) showing plots location and stand boundaries, the two scales assessed (a). Zoomed area in
the transition between standing forest and harvested stands using a false-colour composite from Planet NICFI basemaps (May–June 2020) (b). Same zoomed area
showing the standard deviation map of CHM estimates from Lang et al. (2022b) to highlight the edge effect as shown by yellow pixels between forest and non-forest
areas (c). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

9
A. Pascual et al.
Fig. 8. (continued).
further validated using data for year 2019. Lang’s study produced a
trained model based on neural networks (NN) which can be specifically
refined for the purpose of commercial forest assets to produce local
CHMs at narrower time intervals by simply using S2 images with the
lowest time lag with field measurements. Commercial plantations
represent a proper environment where to verify height estimates from
spaceborne and airborne sensors as homogenous compartments can help
to further mitigate the geolocation error associated to GEDI footprints
(Guerra-Hernández and Pascual, 2021; Milenković et al., 2022). These
favorable conditions can provide valuable benchmarks to assess the
expected correction in height saturation implemented in the 10-m CHM
product.
The 10-m CHM from Lang et al. (2022b) had the upper bound at 33 m
for the boundaries of the study area. For Potapov’s 2019 map, the value
was 26 m. Our field records showed multiple plots above 40 m in
maximum height and some homogenous stands showed uniform tall tree
conditions above the 26 and 33-m height-breaks thresholds. The dif­
ferences between ground truth and CHM data for our training plots
decreased from 14 m for Potapov’s to 7.6 m in Lang’s when it comes to
maximum tree height. The improvement from the 30- to the 10-m
product is notorious in maxima but also for mean tree height: average
difference decreased from 9.5 to 3.6 m. The refinement in Lang’s CHM is
a remarkable step forward in forest satellite mapping and we want to
acknowledge the major contribution this product brings to the forest
remote sensing community. Not only resolution improved to 10 m, au­
thors also added the prediction of uncertainty which, as shown here by
10
Ecological Informatics 70 (2022) 101748
means of Model 4, it can help towards data calibration, substantially
improving the agreement between CHM estimates to ground-truth
height estimates – this is essential for monitoring (Mitchard et al., 2014).
Our results for Model 4 showed height saturation is an issue that still
persists in the product according to our data within the tested bound­
aries. The addition of pixel estimates of uncertainty improved the
alignment to ground measured height, both for tree maxima and for
mean tree values, paving the way to correct the bias reported in Models
1–2 for maximum height. These results highlight the need of computing
uncertainty estimates for model predictions to further inform on the
robustness of the estimation but also to correct biases as shown with
Model 4. The benefit of aggregating uncertainty estimates to CHM es­
timates was less evident for mean tree height for which CHM estimates
already showed better agreement to plot data. Some plots below 30 m
(see Fig. 6b) had no increment in height when adding plot estimates of
SD as these values were close to zero. The 3-year inventory series sup­
porting the model calibration allowed us to identify temporal changes as
some plots were harvested in 2019 and 2021, but not in 2020 - this
helped us to reduce the uncertainty at interpreting the analyses and to
better align the temporal scope of the field data and CHM products.
The showcased products by Potapov et al. (2020) and Lang et al.
(2022b) set refence thresholds for ongoing and coming global studies on
tree height and biomass mapping. With this assessment we have iden­
tified limitations but also solutions based on the data provided by the
authors, publicly available and easy to access. The improvement in
Model 4 solutions outlines practitioners of commercial forestry and
A. Pascual et al.
tropical environments a solution to correct CHM estimates if needed and
shows the actionability of uncertainty maps to imp. We identified the
need of correction CHM estimates for plot-level estimates of maximum
tree height. Mean tree height, by definition, is smoothed by the aver­
aging considering the number of trees in the samples, which was high
and varies across the experiment. The upscaling of results at stand-level
showed the same trends: FILLIN "" maximum tree height remained
clearly on top of 10-m CHM estimates for Model 1–2 without correcting
with estimates of SD. The homogenous environment commercial
forestry stands represents is a helpful source for global product valida­
tion. The assessment at plot-level showed bias in estimates of SD: the SD
of tree height measurements was a third of the value compute from the
10-m CHM product.
The 10-m CHM is valid for year 2020 although authors used GEDI
and S2 observations for year 2019 and 2020. The fusion of GEDI RH98
metrics at footprint level and image mosaics deserves some consider­
ations. Authors filter GEDI shots ranging between April and August in
both 2019 and 2020 and they assigned height to pixels by associating
GEDI L2A height (RH98) to the image cell ranging within the center of
the 25-m GEDI footprint, exceeding the scale of S1 imagery. The reso­
lution of 10-m for the 2020 CHM can be considered as nominal as the 10-
m threshold is not capable to mask out edge effect as with stand
boundaries in transition areas where forest structure abruptly varies.
The impact of these edge effects should be negligible when computing
average values for stands, but it highlights the mismatch in the scale
between GEDI 25-m footprints where canopy height is retrieved and the
S2 imagery at 10-m used as auxiliary, wall-to-wall support for the CHM
product. The selection of GEDI observations to train the statistical
models under these CHM solutions is another important factor.
Fig. 9. Availability of GEDI L2A shots over the study area. Orbits along year 2019 (blue) and along 2021 (red) intersecting the study area are represented. Dots
represent 25-m footprint of GEDI laser full waveforms. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)
11
Ecological Informatics 70 (2022) 101748
The 30-m CHM from Potapov et al. (2020) used GEDI data from
orbits between April–October 2019 while the GEDI catalog in Lang’s
et al., (2022b) included April and August both in 2019 and 2020.
Phenology in the winter hemisphere might have led authors to filter
GEDI data only over short-term periods to produce global CHM, but for
the case of tropical ecosystems this filtering leaves out many observa­
tions that could have improved the accuracy of global CHM models.
Indeed, there are GEDI orbits in 2019 and 2021 over the 1400-ha study
site, some of them outside of the filtered range by the authors (Fig. 9).
The neural network model structure behind the 10-m product can be
further calibrated with enhanced image selection while using many
more GEDI observations under enhanced geolocation uncertainty. The
version of GEDI data used for training models must be clearly specified
every now and then in global CHM products as GEDI orbit data pro­
cessed under version 001 can present geolocation errors that could make
the association between 10-m images and footprints invalid (Roy et al.,
2021). Next developments on global CHM must broad the temporal
scope of the product to fully maximize the global coverage of satellite
missions. The NASA GEDI mission is still collecting data and it will be
doing so until later 2023 - producing refined data releases of height and
biomass products (e.g., Dubayah et al., 2020a).
The issue of product validation and calibration will become even
more pressing and relevant as the number of global mapping applica­
tions is expanding boosted by satellite mapping mission such as GEDI or
NISAR among others. Same as presented here for the global forest height
maps, forest biomass is another niche (Duncanson et al., 2019; Mitchard
et al., 2014; Yu et al., 2022) on which coming research articles could
follow the steps in the assessment presented here: the use of temporally
coincident, high-quality ground data to evaluate model performance
A. Pascual et al.
and help in the continuous calibration of estimates of forest structure
from satellite remote sensing.
The approach outlines by the authors and the geographical scope of
the training area is under the radar of novel remote sensing programmes.
One example are Planet tropical mosaics funded by THE Norway’s In­
ternational Climate & Forests Initiative (NICFI), which is delivering
continuous monitoring in tropical ecosystems using almost daily ob­
servations to produce annual and monthly mosaics over tropical forests.
The data fusion approach based applied in Lang et al. (2022a, 2022b)
and the relevance of tropical forest for climate change and conservation
policies might advocate for a tropical tree height map model where the
specifics of moisture saturation, fast-growing conditions can be more
effectively addressed while downscaling the resolution of CHM esti­
mates using the 4.77-m resolution of Planet NICFI data, for example.
5. Conclusions
The assessment presented here evaluates the suitability of global
CHM for the monitoring of forest landscape characterized by tall trees.
Despite the challenging fast-growing conditions, the agreement on forest
canopy height between field measurements and the 10-m CHM tested
here is remarkable when accounting for prediction uncertainty. The
improvement in the tested 10-m CHM is notorious in the study area
when adding uncertainty to calibrate field measurements compared to
the performance of the 30-m CHM previously available. Based on our
results and the elaborated insights here, future refinements on global
canopy height model need to better explore the possibilities and con­
straints when using data from the still in -orbit NASA GEDI mission – an
actionable, flagship tool for global forest monitoring.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101748.
References
Andersen, H.E., Reutebuch, S.E., McGaughey, R.J., 2006. A rigorous assessment of tree
height measurements obtained using airborne lidar and conventional field methods.
Can. J. Remote. Sens. https://doi.org/10.5589/m06-030.
Asner, G.P., Mascaro, J., Anderson, C., Knapp, D.E., Martin, R.E., Kennedy-bowdoin, T.,
Van Breugel, M., Davies, S., Hall, J.S., Muller-landau, H.C., Potvin, C., Sousa, W.,
Wright, J., Bermingham, E., 2013. High-fidelity national carbon mapping for
resource management and REDD +. Carbon Balance Manag. 8 (1), 1. https://doi.
org/10.1186/1750-0680-8-7.
Cordell, S., Questad, E.J., Asner, G.P., Kinney, K.M., Thaxton, J.M., Uowolo, A.,
Brooks, S., Chynoweth, M.W., 2017. Remote sensing for restoration planning: how
the big picture can inform stakeholders. Restor. Ecol. 25 (12), 147–154. https://doi.
org/10.1111/rec.12448.
Csillik, O., Kumar, P., Mascaro, J., Shea, T.O., Asner, G.P., 2019. Monitoring tropical
forest carbon stocks and emissions using planet satellite data. Sci. Rep. 9 (17831),
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54386-6.
Dubayah, R., Luthcke, S., Blair, J.B., Hofton, M., Armston, J., Tang, H., 2020a. GEDI L1B
Geolocated Waveform Data Global Footprint Level V001. NASA EOSDIS Land
Processes DAAC. Accessed 2022-05-26 from. https://doi.org/10.5067/GEDI/
GEDI01_B.001.
Dubayah, R., Blair, J.B., Goetz, S., Fatoyinbo, L., Hansen, M., Healey, S., Hofton, M.,
Hurtt, G., Kellner, J., Luthcke, S., Armston, J., Tang, H., Duncanson, L., Hancock, S.,
Jantz, P., Marselis, S., Patterson, P.L., Qi, W., Silva, C., 2020b. The global ecosystem
dynamics investigation: high-resolution laser ranging of the Earth’s forests and
topography. Science of Remote Sensing 1 (1), 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
srs.2020.100002.
12
Ecological Informatics 70 (2022) 101748
Duncanson, L., Armston, J., Disney, M., Avitabile, V., Barbier, N., Calders, K., Carter, S.,
Chave, J., Herold, M., Crowther, T.W., Falkowski, M., Kellner, J.R., Labrière, N.,
Lucas, R., MacBean, N., McRoberts, R.E., Meyer, V., Næsset, E., Nickeson, J.E.,
Williams, M., 2019. The importance of consistent global Forest aboveground
biomass product validation. Surv. Geophys. 40 (4), 979–999. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10712-019-09538-8.
Duncanson, L., Kellner, J.R., Armston, J., Dubayah, R., Minor, D.M., Hancock, S.,
Healey, S.P., Patterson, P.L., Saarela, S., Marselis, S., Silva, C.E., Bruening, J.,
Goetz, S.J., Tang, H., Hofton, M., Blair, B., Luthcke, S., Fatoyinbo, L., Abernethy, K.,
Zgraggen, C., 2022. Aboveground biomass density models for NASA ’ s global
ecosystem dynamics investigation (GEDI) lidar mission. Remote Sens. Environ. 270,
112845 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112845.
Fayad, I., Baghdadi, N.N., Alvares, C.A., Stape, J.L., Bailly, J.S., Scolforo, H.F., Zribi, M.,
Maire, G.Le., 2021a. Assessment of GEDI’s LiDAR data for the estimation of Canopy
Heights and wood volume of Eucalyptus plantations in Brazil. IEEE JSTARS 14,
7095–7110. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3092836.
Fayad, I., Ienco, D., Baghdadi, N., Gaetano, R., Alvares, C.A., Stape, J.L., Ferraço
Scolforo, H., Le Maire, G., 2021b. A CNN-based approach for the estimation of
canopy heights and wood volume from GEDI waveforms. Remote Sens. Environ. 265,
112652 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112652.
Guerra-Hernández, J., Pascual, A., 2021. Using GEDI lidar data and airborne laser
scanning to assess height growth dynamics in fast-growing species: a showcase in
Spain. Forest Ecosystems 8 (14), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-021-00291-
2.
Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A.,
Thau, D., Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Love-Land, T.R., et al., 2013. High-resolution
global maps of 21st- century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.1244693.
Healey, S.P., Yang, Z., Gorelick, N., Ilyushchenko, S., 2020. Highly local model
calibration with a new GEDI LiDAR asset on google earth engine reduces landsat
forest height signal saturation. Remote Sens. 12 (17), 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.3390/rs12172840.
Laclau, J.P., Gonçalves, J.L., Stape, J.L., 2013. Perspectives for the management of
eucalypt plantations under biotic and abiotic stresses. For. Ecol. Manag. 301, 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.03.007.
Lang, N., Kalischek, N., Armston, J., Schindler, K., Dubayah, R., Wegner, J.D., 2022a.
Global canopy height regression and uncertainty estimation from GEDI LIDAR
waveforms with deep ensembles. Remote Sens. Environ. 268, 112760 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rse.2021.112760.
Lang, N., Walter, J., Schindler, K., Wegner, J.D., 2022b. A high-resolution canopy height
model of the. Earth. arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2204.08322.
Milenković, M., Reiche, J., Armston, J., Neuenschwander, A., De Keersmaecker, W.,
Herold, M., Verbesselt, J., 2022. Assessing amazon rainforest regrowth with GEDI
and ICESat-2 data. Science of Remote Sensing 100051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
srs.2022.100051.
Mitchard, E.T., Feldpausch, T.R., Brienen, R.J., Lopez-Gonzalez, G., Monteagudo, A.,
Baker, T.R., Lewis, S.L., Lloyd, J., Quesada, C.A., Gloor, M., et al., 2014. Markedly
divergent estimates of Amazon forest carbon density from ground plots and
satellites. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 935–946. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12168.
Pardini, M., Armston, J., Qi, W., Lee, S.K., Tello, M., Cazcarra Bes, V., Choi, C.,
Papathanassiou, K.P., Dubayah, R.O., Fatoyinbo, L.E., 2019. Early lessons on
combining Lidar and multi-baseline SAR measurements for Forest structure
characterization. Surv. Geophys. 40 (4), 803–837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-
019-09553-9.
Pascual, A., Tupinambá-Simões, F., Guerra-Hernández, J., Bravo, F., 2022. High-
resolution planet satellite imagery and multi-temporal surveys to predict risk of tree
mortality in tropical eucalypt forestry. J. Environ. Manag. 310, 114804 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114804.
Potapov, P., Li, X., Hernandez-Serna, A., Tyukavina, A., Hansen, M.C., Kommareddy, A.,
Pickens, A., Turubanova, S., Tang, H., Silva, C.E., et al., 2020. Mapping global forest
canopy height through integration of GEDI and Landsat data. Remote Sens. Environ.
253, 112165 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.112165.
Qi, W., Lee, S.K., Hancock, S., Luthcke, S., Tang, H., Armston, J., Dubayah, R., 2019.
Improved forest height estimation by fusion of simulated GEDI Lidar data and
TanDEM-X InSAR data. Remote Sens. Environ. 221 (11), 621–634. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.035.
Roy, D.P., Kashongwe, H.B., Armston, J., 2021. The impact of geolocation uncertainty on
GEDI tropical forest canopy height estimation and change monitoring. Science of
Remote Sensing 4, 100024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srs.2021.100024.
Silva, C.A., Duncanson, L., Hancock, S., Neuenschwander, A., Thomas, N., Hofton, M.,
Fatoyinbo, L., Simard, M., Marshak, C.Z., Armston, J., Lutchke, S., Dubayah, R.,
2021. Fusing simulated GEDI, ICESat-2 and NISAR data for regional aboveground
biomass mapping. Remote Sens. Environ. 253, 112234 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rse.2020.112234.
Tupinambá-Simões, F., Guerra-Hernández, J., Bravo, F., Pascual, A., 2022. Assessment of
drought effects on survival and growth dynamics in eucalypt commercial forestry
using remote sensing photogrammetry. A showcase in Mato Grosso, Brazil. For. Ecol.
Manag. 505, 119930 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119930.
Urbazaev, M., Thiel, C., Mathieu, R., Naidoo, L., Levick, S.R., Smit, I.P.J., Asner, G.P.,
Schmullius, C., 2015. Assessment of the mapping of fractional woody cover in
southern African savannas using multi-temporal and polarimetric ALOS PALSAR L-
band images. Remote Sens. Environ. 166, 138–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rse.2015.06.013.
Yu, K., Ciais, P., Seneviratne, S.I., Liu, Z., Chen, H.Y.H., Barichivich, J., Allen, C.D.,
Yang, H., Huang, Y., Ballantyne, A.P., 2022. Field-based tree mortality constraint
A. Pascual et al. Ecological Informatics 70 (2022) 101748

reduces estimates of model-projected forest carbon sinks. Nat. Commun. 13 (1)

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29619-4.

13