Computation of prediction intervals for forest aboveground biomass predictions using generalized linear models in a large-extent boreal forest region

Abstract Remotely sensed data have an important application for estimation of forest variables, e.g. height, volume, and aboveground biomass (AGB). The increased use of remotely sensed data implemented along with model-based inference has shown improved efficiency in prediction and mapping of such forest variables. In this study, plot-level airborne laser scanning data and Swedish National Forest Inventory field reference data were used to predict AGB using generalized linear models (GLMs) assuming Gamma and Tweedie distributions for the field observed AGB. The GLMs were selected considering the convenience of not correcting transformation bias as it is required in other regression models with transformed response variable. To overcome the challenge in providing reliable uncertainty estimates for the estimated forest variable map products at individual pixel-scale, we focused on computing 95% prediction intervals (PIs) for Gamma and Tweedie GLMs with a square root link function. The relative uncertainties were computed as the ratio between the half-width of the PIs and the predicted AGBs. The AGB-airborne laser scanning models were developed with root mean square error values of 22.6 Mgha−1 (26%) and 21.7 Mgha−1 (25%), respectively, for the Gamma and Tweedie GLMs. Two methods were applied to compute PIs for the Gamma GLM, one using the R package ‘ciTools’ and another derived through asymptotic theory. It was found that the 95% PIs computed using ‘ciTools’ had the most accurate coverage probability in comparison to the other method. An extended version of these PIs was also utilized for the Tweedie GLMs. The range of PIs associated with the prediction of AGB were narrower for lower predicted AGB values compared with the length of higher predicted AGB values. Comparing the two fitted models, the Gamma GLM showed lower relative uncertainties for the lower range of predicted AGBs, whereas the Tweedie GLM showed lower relative uncertainties for the higher range of predicted AGBs. Overall, the Tweedie GLM provided a better model fit for AGB predictions.