Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회지)

Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회)
권호 표지

Estimation of Forest Biomass for Muju County using Biomass Conversion Table and Remote Sensing Data

산림 바이오매스 변환표와 위성영상을 이용한 무주군의 산림 바이오매스추정

  • Chung, Sang Young (Department of Forest Resources, College of Forest Science, Kookmin University) ;
  • Yim, Jong Su (Department of Forest Resources, College of Forest Science, Kookmin University) ;
  • Cho, Hyun Kook (Division of Forest Resource Information, Korea Forest Research Institute) ;
  • Jeong, Jin Hyun (Division of Forest Resource Information, Korea Forest Research Institute) ;
  • Kim, Sung Ho (Division of Forest Resource Information, Korea Forest Research Institute) ;
  • Shin, Man Yong (Department of Forest Resources, College of Forest Science, Kookmin University)
  • 정상영 (국민대학교 산림자원학과) ;
  • 임종수 (국민대학교 산림자원학과) ;
  • 조현국 (국립산림과학원 산림정보과) ;
  • 정진현 (국립산림과학원 산림정보과) ;
  • 김성호 (국립산림과학원 산림정보과) ;
  • 신만용 (국민대학교 산림자원학과)
  • Received : 2009.05.07
  • Accepted : 2009.08.05
  • Published : 2009.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Forest biomass estimation is essential for greenhouse gas inventories and terrestrial carbon accounting. Remote sensing allows for estimating forest biomass over a large area. This study was conducted to estimate forest biomass and to produce a forest biomass map for Muju county using forest biomass conversion table developed by field plot data from the 5th National Forest Inventory and Landsat TM-5. Correlation analysis was carried out to select suitable independent variables for developing regression models. It was resulted that the height class, crown closure density, and age class were highly correlated with forest biomass. Six regression models were used with the combination of these three stand variables and verified by validation statistics such as root mean square error (RMSE) and mean bias. It was found that a regression model with crown closure density and height class (Model V) was better than others for estimating forest biomass. A biomass conversion table by model V was produced and then used for estimating forest biomass in the study site. The total forest biomass of the Muju county was estimated about 8.8 million ton, or 128.3 ton/ha by the conversion table.

위성영상은 대면적의 산림 바이오매스 추정 및 주제도의 제작에 있어서 효과적인 자료로 이용되고 있다. 본 연구는 제5차 국가산림자원조사에서 수집된 야외 표본점의 임분 변수와 위성영상을 이용하여 산림 바이오매스 변환표를 작성한 후, 무주군의 산림 바이오매스를 추정 및 주제도를 제작하기 위해 수행되었다. 4개의 표본점별 임분 변수와 산림 바이오매스 간의 상관분석을 실시한 결과, 수고, 수관밀도, 그리고 영급이 산림 바이오매스에 영향을 미치는 변수로 파악되었다. 따라서 산림 바이오매스 변환표 작성을 위해 이들 3가지 임분 변수의 조합을 독립변수로 하는 6개 회귀모형을 사용하여 최적 회귀추정식을 도출한 후, 임상별로 산림 바이오매스 변환표를 작성하였다. 회귀추정식의 적합도를 평가하기 위하여 교차대조법에 의한 추정치 오차와 편차를 산출한 결과, 수관밀도와 수고등급을 독립변수로 하는 추정식(모형 V)이 다른 모형에 비해 산림 바이오매스 추정능력이 우수한 것으로 나타났다. 회귀모형 V를 이용한 산림 바이오매스 변환표와 위성영상의 분류에 의해 생성된 임분 변수의 주제도를 이용하여 추정된 전라북도 무주군의 총 산림 바이오매스는 약 881만 톤이며, ha당 산림 바이오매스는 128.3톤으로 나타났다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 한국학술진흥재단

References

  1. 국립산림과학원, 2008. 제5차 국가산림자원조사-현지조사 매뉴얼-서울. pp. 54
  2. 무주군, 2007. 무주군 통계연보. http://www.muju.org/statistics/ index.html
  3. 손영모, 이경학, 김래현. 2007. 우리나라 산림 바이오매스 추정. 한국임학회지 96(4): 477-482
  4. Bortolot, Z.J. and Wynne, R.H. 2005. Estimating forest biomass using small footprint LiDAR data : An individual tree-based approach that incorporates training data. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 59(6): 342-360 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2005.07.001
  5. Brown, S. 1997. Estimating biomass and biomass change in tropical forests: a primer. FAO Forestry Paper, vol. 134. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome. pp. 55
  6. Fazakas, Z., Nilsson, M. and Olsson, H. 1999. Regional forest biomass and wood volume estimation using satellite data and ancillary data. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 98-99: 417-425 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(99)00112-4
  7. Fehrmann, L., Lehtonen, A., Kleinn, C. and Tomppo, E. 2008. Comparison of linear and mixed-effect regression models and k-nearest neighbor approach for estimation of single-tree biomass. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38(1): 1-9 https://doi.org/10.1139/X07-119
  8. Fournier, R.A., Luther, J.E., Guindon, L., Lambert, M.C., Piercey, D., Hall, R.J. and Wulder, M.A. 2003. Mapping aboveground tree biomass at the stand level from inventory information: test cases in Newfoundland and Quebec. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33(10): 1846- 1863 https://doi.org/10.1139/x03-099
  9. Hardin, P.J. 1994. Parametric and Nearest Neighbor methods for hybrid classification: a comparison of pixel assignment accuracy. Photo-grammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 60(12): 1439-1448
  10. IPCC. 2003. Good Practice guidance for land use, landuse change and forestry, Institute for Global Environment Strategies
  11. Jakubauskas, M.E. and Price, K.P. 1997. Empirical relationships between structural and spectral factors of Yellowstone lodgepole pine forests. Photo-grammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 63(12): 1375-1381
  12. Katila, M. and Tomppo, E. 2002. Stratification by ancillary data in multisource forest inventories employing knearest neighbor estimation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32(9): 1548-1561 https://doi.org/10.1139/x02-047
  13. Labrecque, S., Fournier, R.A., Luther, J.E. and Piercey, D. 2006. A comparison of four methods to map biomass from Landsat-TM and inventory data in western Newfoundland. Forest Ecology and Management 226: 129- 144 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.01.030
  14. Luther, J.E., Fournier, R.A., Piercey, D.E., Guindon, L. and Hall, R.J. 2006. Biomass mapping using forest type and structure derived from Landsat TM imagery. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 8(2006): 173-187 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2005.09.002
  15. Malhi, Y. Meir, P. and Brown, S. 2002. Forests, carbon and global climate. Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences 360(1797): 1567-91 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2002.1020
  16. Salvador, R. and Pons, X. 1998. On the reliability of Landsat TM for estimation forest variables by regression techniques: A methodological analysis. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience & Remote Sensing 36(6): 1888-1897 https://doi.org/10.1109/36.729360