Next Article in Journal
3D Point Cloud Semantic Modelling: Integrated Framework for Indoor Spaces and Furniture
Previous Article in Journal
Mapping Population Distribution from High Resolution Remotely Sensed Imagery in a Data Poor Setting
Reply published on 8 September 2018, see Remote Sens. 2018, 10(9), 1432.
Comment

Comment on Tompalski et al. Combining Multi-Date Airborne Laser Scanning and Digital Aerial Photogrammetric Data for Forest Growth and Yield Modelling. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 347

Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Bioeconomy and Environment Unit, Yliopistokatu 6, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland
Received: 4 July 2018 / Accepted: 24 August 2018 / Published: 5 September 2018
Tompalski et al. (2018) propose “template matching” as a (required) intermediate step to use remote sensing-based predictions of forest attributes as inputs of the Growth and Yield Projection System (GYPSY) for the simulations of forest stand dynamics in Alberta, Canada. Yet, the feasibility of the approach can be criticized for many points that call for experimental verification. The approach cannot be fully replicated based on the description of the paper. Nevertheless, an experimental implementation with synthetic data indicates that the quality of the projections may vary considerably depending on parameter assumptions for the templates, and the projections may include discontinuities between the observed and projected forest attributes. The approach is poorly motivated given that the effects described above are largely avoidable, if the underlying GYPSY models are run without the template matching step. The R-codes used for the analyses are provided as supplementary data for an interested reader wishing to evaluate the conclusions made above. A semantic analysis indicates further problems with multi-date data on a wall-to-wall grid. The projections obtained by template matching should be exposed to criticism for their realism and benchmarked against other approaches prior to using template matching as proposed by Tompalski et al. View Full-Text
Keywords: forest inventory; growth; uncertainty; error; model criticism; evaluation; validation forest inventory; growth; uncertainty; error; model criticism; evaluation; validation
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Vauhkonen, J. Comment on Tompalski et al. Combining Multi-Date Airborne Laser Scanning and Digital Aerial Photogrammetric Data for Forest Growth and Yield Modelling. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 347. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1411. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rs10091411

AMA Style

Vauhkonen J. Comment on Tompalski et al. Combining Multi-Date Airborne Laser Scanning and Digital Aerial Photogrammetric Data for Forest Growth and Yield Modelling. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 347. Remote Sensing. 2018; 10(9):1411. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rs10091411

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vauhkonen, Jari. 2018. "Comment on Tompalski et al. Combining Multi-Date Airborne Laser Scanning and Digital Aerial Photogrammetric Data for Forest Growth and Yield Modelling. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 347" Remote Sensing 10, no. 9: 1411. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rs10091411

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop