Next Article in Journal
Quantifying Multi-Decadal Change of Planted Forest Cover Using Airborne LiDAR and Landsat Imagery
Previous Article in Journal
Photogrammetric, Geometrical, and Numerical Strategies to Evaluate Initial and Current Conditions in Historical Constructions: A Test Case in the Church of San Lorenzo (Zamora, Spain)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Correction

Correction: Pimont, F. et al. Estimating Leaf Bulk Density Distribution in a Tree Canopy Using Terrestrial LiDAR and a Straightforward Calibration Procedure. Remote Sens. 2015, 7(6), 7995-8018

1
INRA, UR 629, Ecologie des Forêts Méditerranéennes, Domaine Saint Paul, Site Agroparc, F-84914 Avignon Cedex 9, France
2
ONF, Département RDI-Pôle Nancy 11 rue de l’île de Corse 54000 Nancy, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 5 January 2016 / Accepted: 8 January 2016 / Published: 14 January 2016
After publication of the research paper [1] an error during the data analysis process was recognized. In the Model Calibration Section 3.2, the indices I1, I2 and I3 were accidentally divided by the volume of calibration volume, v = 4 / 3 π 0.35 3 = 0.180   m 3 .
Regressions for calibration and confidence intervals were re-computed based on the correct indices, and the corresponding tables and figures of Section 3.2 are presented in the same order as the paper in the following Table 1 and Figure 1 and Figure 2. In comparison to the originally stated values the calibration parameters and standard errors were simply multiplied by 1/v, whereas R2 values were not modified, so that the statements of the section remain correct.
In the Model Application and Evaluation Section 3.3, the same 1/v factor was initially used in the computation of indices at plot scale as in the calibration, so that the mistake has no consequence on the results presented at plot scale. Consequently, the statements, figures and tables in the rest of the document are correct.
To summarize, the error was limited to a factor 1/v in calibration coefficients and standard errors.
We apologize for any inconvenience this has caused.
Table 1. Correction of Table 3 in [1]. Bulk density model characteristics.
Table 1. Correction of Table 3 in [1]. Bulk density model characteristics.
Index IElement DistributionCriteriaCalibration ParameterStandard ErrorR2R2
(on CV with Ni>1000)
I1Spherical(Ni)max0.5340.01940.60−0.19
I1Spherical(Nt − Nb)max0.5420.02390.42−0.16
I2Spherical(Ni)max0.3700.01450.530.34
I2Spherical(Nt − Nb)max0.3760.01720.370.36
I3Spherical(Ni)max0.4030.01200.730.45
I3Spherical(Nt − Nb)max0.4120.01490.600.45
I3Plagiophile(Ni)max0.4270.01220.740.32
I3Uniform(Ni)max0.4320.01250.740.29
I3Erectophile(Ni)max0.3800.01370.600.36
I3Planophile(Ni)max0.4260.02200.22−0.78
Figure 1. Correction of Figure 6 in [1]. Calibration of indices I1 (a,b), I2 (c,d), I3 (e,f) against leaf bulk densities in 35 CVs. Left figures (a, c and e) used the largest number of intercepted beams in the CV for scan selection (Ni)max; Right figures (b, d and f) used the largest number of incident beams on the CV for scan selection (Nt − Nt)max. Dashed lines are 95% confidence interval.
Figure 1. Correction of Figure 6 in [1]. Calibration of indices I1 (a,b), I2 (c,d), I3 (e,f) against leaf bulk densities in 35 CVs. Left figures (a, c and e) used the largest number of intercepted beams in the CV for scan selection (Ni)max; Right figures (b, d and f) used the largest number of incident beams on the CV for scan selection (Nt − Nt)max. Dashed lines are 95% confidence interval.
Remotesensing 08 00064 g001
Figure 2. Correction of Figure 7 [1]. Analysis of residuals of the model based on I3 and the (Ni)max. (a) function of I3 on the (Ni)max data set (b) function of I3 on the Ni > 1000 data set (c) function of calibration volume heights on the (Ni)max data set (d) function of calibration volume heights on the Ni > 1000 data set.
Figure 2. Correction of Figure 7 [1]. Analysis of residuals of the model based on I3 and the (Ni)max. (a) function of I3 on the (Ni)max data set (b) function of I3 on the Ni > 1000 data set (c) function of calibration volume heights on the (Ni)max data set (d) function of calibration volume heights on the Ni > 1000 data set.
Remotesensing 08 00064 g002

Reference

  1. Pimont, F.; Dupuy, J.-L.; Rigolot, E.; Prat, V.; Piboule, A. Estimating leaf bulk density distribution in a tree canopy using terrestrial LiDAR and a straightforward calibration procedure. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 7995–8018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pimont, F.; Dupuy, J.-L.; Rigolot, E.; Prat, V.; Piboule, A. Correction: Pimont, F. et al. Estimating Leaf Bulk Density Distribution in a Tree Canopy Using Terrestrial LiDAR and a Straightforward Calibration Procedure. Remote Sens. 2015, 7(6), 7995-8018. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 64. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rs8010064

AMA Style

Pimont F, Dupuy J-L, Rigolot E, Prat V, Piboule A. Correction: Pimont, F. et al. Estimating Leaf Bulk Density Distribution in a Tree Canopy Using Terrestrial LiDAR and a Straightforward Calibration Procedure. Remote Sens. 2015, 7(6), 7995-8018. Remote Sensing. 2016; 8(1):64. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rs8010064

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pimont, François, Jean-Luc Dupuy, Eric Rigolot, Vincent Prat, and Alexandre Piboule. 2016. "Correction: Pimont, F. et al. Estimating Leaf Bulk Density Distribution in a Tree Canopy Using Terrestrial LiDAR and a Straightforward Calibration Procedure. Remote Sens. 2015, 7(6), 7995-8018" Remote Sensing 8, no. 1: 64. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rs8010064

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop