Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Drones and machine learning for estimating forest carbon storage

Carbon Research

Estimating forest carbon storage is crucial for understanding sink capacities to facilitate carbon crediting and mitigate climate change. Images captured with RGB or LiDAR cameras, mounted on drones, could be used to derive forest structural parameters such as canopy area, height, and tree diameter. Further, these data could be used in Machine Learning models and allometric equations to rapidly and precisely estimate and model carbon storage in their living biomass. Graphical Abstract

(2022) 1:21 Sharma et al. Carbon Research https://doi.org/10.1007/s44246-022-00021-5 Open Access PERSPECTIVE Drones and machine learning for estimating forest carbon storage Sadikshya Sharma1, Sambandh Dhal2, Tapas Rout3 and Bharat Sharma Acharya4* Abstract Estimating forest carbon storage is crucial for understanding sink capacities to facilitate carbon crediting and mitigate climate change. Images captured with RGB or LiDAR cameras, mounted on drones, could be used to derive forest structural parameters such as canopy area, height, and tree diameter. Further, these data could be used in Machine Learning models and allometric equations to rapidly and precisely estimate and model carbon storage in their living biomass. Highlights 1. Forests capture and store several tons of carbon in their living biomass, and are therefore, a useful option for carbon sequestration. 2. Drone imagery-derived forest structural parameters could be used in Machine Learning (ML) models and allometric eqs. 3. Integrating drone data with ML models provide a rapid, accurate, and cost-effective approach to estimate and model carbon capture and storage. Keywords: Carbon, Climate change, Drones, Machine learning, Satellites *Correspondence: [email protected]; [email protected] 4 Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center, Corpus Christi, TX 78406, USA Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Sharma et al. Carbon Research (2022) 1:21 Page 2 of 4 Graphical Abstract The global atmospheric carbon concentration has increased from 277 ppm (ppm) in 1750 (beginning of the industrial era) to 412 ppm in 2020 (Friedlingstein et al. 2022). Increasing carbon levels have led to a further rise in global temperature and changes in other climate quantities. Carbon capture, utilization, and storage options are pivotal in mitigating climatic effects and achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly clean energy (SDG 7) and climate action (SDG 13). Forests are an important part of the global carbon budget, capturing and storing several tons of carbon in their living biomass, and are therefore, a useful option for carbon sequestration (Fahey et al. 2010). Thus, a rapid, accurate, and non-destructive measurement of forest carbon stock and change is crucial for planning forest management and carbon emission reductions. Simply, forests account for almost 86% of the global vegetation carbon pool. However, carbon capture and storage could vary with stand, age, composition, precipitation, temperature, radiation, management, disturbance, and harvesting frequency, among other factors (Dixon et al. 1994). Inventory-based methods and allometric approaches are commonly used to estimate carbon stored in the aboveground biomass. Inventory data are a part of complete, systematic, and annual sampling and surveys of plots within each state under the Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Services (Bechtold & Patterson, 2005; Smith et al. 2019). Allometric approaches, on the other hand, are based on regression models using morphological traits (Avalos et al. 2022; Jones et al. 2020). These methods appear to have comparatively low coverages and suffer from sampling and estimation errors (Weiskittel et al. 2015; Picard et al. 2015). Drones capture forest images to derive morphological/ structural parameters, which could be used in allometric equations. Images captured with RGB or Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensors on drones generate dense point clouds for monitoring forest cover and therefore provide a low-cost alternative to inventory methods and satellite-based sensing. Integrating drone imagery and Machine learning (ML) models could provide a useful tool in carbon estimation over an extensive area with improved precision; thereby facilitating forest management and long-term carbon capture and storage. Drones are increasingly being used for on-demand, rapid, cost-effective, and near real-time characterization, monitoring, and mapping of forest cover at much finer scales. Miller et al. (2017) used a multirotor drone with a Canon ELPH 520 (Canon Inc., Tokyo, Japan) HS point and shoot digital camera (RGB sensor) and highlighted the potential to precisely measure tree height and biomass in monoculture plantations when they were used with accurate terrain models; thereby, facilitating carbon budgeting. Jones et al. (2020) used a 20-megapixel Sony RX100iii camera mounted onto a 3DR Iris+ drone to capture RGB images in generating a three-dimensional model and orthomosaics of Mangrove stand in Southern Australia, which were then used in the estimations of canopy area and canopy height to further model diameter at breast height (DBH) and diameter at 30 cm (basal diameter; D30). Subsequently, two approaches, drone Sharma et al. Carbon Research (2022) 1:21 image-based measurement of tree structure (height, canopy area, DBH, D30) and drone-image based measurement of structural characteristics in allometric equations, were used in predicting above-ground biomass for carbon estimation. Indeed, potential exists to integrate dronebased forestry features with data-driven approaches like ML, Deep Learning, and time-series forecasting models in estimating and modeling forest carbon storage. Machine Learning is “a branch of artificial intelligence and computer science which focuses on the use of data and algorithms to imitate the way that humans learn, gradually improving its accuracy” (IBM, 2020). Deep Learning is a subset of ML that utilizes artificial neural networks. We see the potential for using different Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models along with different variants of Deep Learning like Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) units and Gated Recurrent Units (GRUs) to forecast forest indices for carbon estimation. A few studies have utilized ML models and drones in classifying forest areas and estimating coverage showing 93% accuracy (Haq et al. 2021); detecting forest tree species, forest fires, and disease and insects with a median accuracy of 80% (Abid, 2021; Syifa et al. 2020; Diez et al. 2021); estimating timber quality and carbon storage (Baccini et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2021; Mascaro et al. 2014); investigating plantation and restoration, and conducting policy analysis (Miller et al. 2017; Firebanks-Quevedo et al. 2022). For example, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)- based Deep Learning models for real-time target detection and recognition like YoLov3 and YoLov5 have been used in predicting sawn timber moisture content (Wang et al. 2021). Other CNN-based algorithms like a combination of ResNet50 and SegNet architecture were utilized in forest image segmentation (Bhatnagar et al. 2020). Images collected by hyperspectral and LiDAR cameras or drone acquired-RGB data were used as inputs in the Deep Learning models to detect forest tree species (Mosin et al. 2019; Mascaro et al. 2014) and forest anomalies like forest fires and insect manifestation (Diez et al. 2021). Random forest ML and airborne LiDAR technology have also shown potentials for better estimating and modeling forest carbon and developing carbon density maps (Baccini et al. 2012; Mascaro et al. 2014). While research on forecasting growth attributes or structure of trees is limited, interest is mounting to facilitate carbon estimation and mapping for larger areas with improved accuracy. Overall, we see the potential to utilize drone images to estimate important forestry features and indices like basal area, canopy cover, height, volume, and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) (Zhang et al. 2016). Such structural characteristics could be used in developing regression models or used in allometric equations in determining the carbon content in aboveground biomass Page 3 of 4 at a point in time. The inclusion of climatic variables like rainfall, temperature and humidity in forecasting models further opens opportunities to refine algorithms for sitespecific predictions. However, results from drones and ML models must be validated. Select destructive sampling of trees provide a way to cross-validate carbon estimation (Jones et al. 2020). Additional research on drones and ML would provide additional knowledge to our current understanding of forest carbon. Abbreviations ARIMA: Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average; CNN: Convolutional Neural Network; DBH: Diameter at Breast Height; FIA: Forest Inventory and Analysis; GRUs: Gated Recurrent Units; LiDAR: Light Detection and Ranging; LSTM: Long Short-Term Memory; ML: Machine Learning; NDVI: Normalized Difference Vegetation Index; PPM: Parts Per Million; RGB: Red Green Blue; SDGs: Sustainable Development Goals. Acknowledgements We express our sincere thanks to Prof. Todd Halihan for his valuable edits and suggestions. Disclaimer The authors are responsible for the views expressed in this paper and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views and policies of their universities. Authors’ contributions Sadikshya Sharma: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. Sambandh Dhal: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. Tapas Rout: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. Bharat Sharma Acharya: Conceptualization, Original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. All authors read and approved the final manuscript Funding This paper received no funding. Availability of data and materials This paper contains no new data. Declarations Competing interests 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. Author details 1 Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, State College, PA 16802, USA. 2 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA. 3 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USA. 4 Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center, Corpus Christi, TX 78406, USA. Received: 10 August 2022 Accepted: 5 October 2022 References Abid F (2021) A survey of machine learning algorithms based forest fires prediction and detection systems. Fire Technology 57(2):559–590 Avalos G, Cambronero M, Alvarez-Vergnani C (2022) Allometric Models to Estimate Carbon Content in Arecaceae Based on Seven Species of Neotropical Palms. Frontiers in Forests and Global. Change 135 Sharma et al. Carbon Research (2022) 1:21 Baccini AGSJ, Goetz SJ, Walker WS, Laporte NT, Sun M, Sulla-Menashe D et al (2012) Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps. Nature climate change 2(3):182–185 Bechtold, W. A., & Patterson, P. L. (2005). The enhanced forest inventory and analysis program--national sampling design and estimation procedures (No. 80). USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station Bhatnagar S, Gill L, Ghosh B (2020) Drone image segmentation using machine and deep learning for mapping raised bog vegetation communities. Remote Sensing 12(16):2602 Diez Y, Kentsch S, Fukuda M, Caceres MLL, Moritake K, Cabezas M (2021) Deep learning in forestry using UAV-acquired RGB data: A practical review. Remote Sensing 13(14):2837 Dixon RK, Solomon AM, Brown S, Houghton RA, Trexier MC, Wisniewski J (1994) Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science 263(5144):185–190 Fahey TJ, Woodbury PB, Battles JJ, Goodale CL, Hamburg SP, Ollinger SV, Woodall CW (2010) Forest carbon storage: ecology, management, and policy. Front in Ecol Environ 8(5):245–252 Firebanks-Quevedo D, Planas J, Buckingham K, Taylor C, Silva D, Naydenova G, Zamora-Cristales R (2022) Using machine learning to identify incentives in forestry policy: Towards a new paradigm in policy analysis. Forest Policy Econ 134:102624 Friedlingstein P, Jones MW, O’Sullivan M, Andrew RM, Bakker DC, Hauck J et al (2022) Global carbon budget 2021. Earth System Science Data 14(4):1917–2005 Haq MA, Rahaman G, Baral P, Ghosh A (2021) Deep learning-based supervised image classification using UAV images for forest areas classification. J Indian Soc Remote Sensing 49(3):601–606 IBM (2020). Machine Learning. https://www.ibm.com/cloud/learn/machi ne-learning#:~:text=Machine%20learning%20is%20a%20bra nch,learn%2C%20gradually%20improving%20its%20accuracy [retrieved 30 July, 2022] Jones AR, Raja Segaran R, Clarke KD, Waycott M, Goh WS, Gillanders BM (2020) Estimating mangrove tree biomass and carbon content: a comparison of forest inventory techniques and drone imagery. Front Marine Sci 6:784 Mascaro J, Asner GP, Knapp DE, Kennedy-Bowdoin T, Martin RE, Anderson C et al (2014) A tale of two “forests”: Random Forest machine learning aids tropical forest carbon mapping. PloS one 9(1):e85993 Miller E, Dandois JP, Detto M, Hall JS (2017) Drones as a tool for monoculture plantation assessment in the steepland tropics. Forests 8(5):168 Mosin, V., Aguilar, R., Platonov, A., Vasiliev, A., Kedrov, A., & Ivanov, A. (2019). Remote Sensing and machine learning for tree detection and classification in forestry applications. In Image and Signal Processing for Remote Sensing XXV (Vol. 11155, pp. 130–141) Picard N, Boyemba Bosela F, Rossi V (2015) Reducing the error in biomass estimates strongly depends on model selection. Annals of forest Science 72(6):811–823 Smith JE, Domke GM, Nichols MC, Walters BF (2019) Carbon stocks and stock change on federal forest lands of the United States. Ecosphere 10(3):e02637 Syifa M, Park SJ, Lee CW (2020) Detection of the pine wilt disease tree candidates for drone remote sensing using artificial intelligence techniques. Engineering 6(8):919–926 Wang Y, Zhang W, Gao R, Jin Z, Wang X (2021) Recent advances in the application of deep learning methods to forestry. Wood Sci Technol 55(5):1171–1202 Weiskittel AR, MacFarlane DW, Radtke PJ, Affleck DL, Temesgen H, Woodall CW et al (2015) A call to improve methods for estimating tree biomass for regional and national assessments. Journal of Forestry 113(4):414–424 Zhang J, Hu J, Lian J, Fan Z, Ouyang X, Ye W (2016) Seeing the forest from drones: Testing the potential of lightweight drones as a tool for long-term forest monitoring. Biological Conservation 198:60–69 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Page 4 of 4