PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
December 21, 2025Revista Árvore0 citationsOpen Access

Assessing multiple remotely sensed data and model-assisted inference for biomass estimation of an Atlantic Forest fragment

View Full Paper
TMTalles Bhering de MatosAMAlessandra Christine Bittencourt Ambrogi de MouraMPMikaely Vasconcelos Paulo

Key Points

  • This research compares remote sensing techniques for estimating biomass in an Atlantic Forest fragment.
  • Evaluated multiple remote sensors: Sentinel-1, Sentinel-2, digital aerial photogrammetry (DAP).
  • Fitted linear models using two predictors for each sensor and a data fusion model.
  • Conducted the study across ten 0.1 ha plots within a 17 ha forest fragment.
  • Data fusion model provided the best predictive performance with RMSE = 41%.
  • S2-based model yielded the most accurate population estimate (SE = 21 Mg ha⁻¹), 7% more efficient than traditional methods.
  • DAP model had the highest error (RMSE = 64%), indicating limitations in canopy penetration.

Abstract

Forest biomass quantification (Mg ha⁻¹) is essential for ecosystem monitoring, especially in areas under anthropogenic pressure, such as Atlantic Forest fragments. This study aimed to compare remote sensors in biomass mapping and population stock estimation of an Atlantic Forest fragment. Ten 0.1 ha plots were randomly distributed within a 17 ha fragment. Data from Sentinel-1 (S1), Sentinel-2 (S2), digital aerial photogrammetry (DAP), and their fusion were evaluated for the construction of predictive models. Linear models with two predictors were fitted: one for each sensor and another using data fusion, selecting the best predictors among all. The models were applied to estimate stand biomass using a regression estimator. The data fusion model showed the best predictive performance (RMSE = 41%), while the DAP-based model had the highest error (RMSE = 64%). However, the most accurate population estimate was obtained with the S2-based model (SE = 21 Mg ha-1), with a relative efficiency 7% higher compared to the traditional inventory (SE = 22 Mg ha-1). Estimates based on DAP, S1, and fusion were less accurate than those from the field inventory. The selected metrics, such as vegetation indices (S2) and textural metrics (S1), reflected the sensors' sensitivity to canopy structure and foliage abundance. DAP showed limitations, possibly due to its low canopy penetration. It is concluded that although the data fusion between DAP and S2 produced the best model for biomass mapping, S2 alone proved more advantageous for population estimates in forest fragments with limited sampling.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Matos et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69473b64db9c958d0dfca814https://doi.org/10.53661/1806-9088202650263981
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Forest aboveground biomass estimation through integration of sentinel-2 and PALSAR-2 time series: assessing models trained on GEDI and field inventory benchmarks2026 · 2 citations
  2. 2Regionally trained models for mapping aboveground biomass from Remote Sensing data fusion: a comparison of the capabilities of Machine Learning in 4 different biomes.2024
  3. 3Aboveground Biomass Retrieval and Time Series Analysis Across Different Forest Types Using Multi-Source Data Fusion2026
  4. 4AI-powered multisensor fusion for forest biomass mapping: photogrammetric canopy profiles improve estimates in Southeastern North Carolina2026
  5. 5Biomass Distribution Mapping of Boreal Forests using GEDI, Sentinel-2, and SRTM Data2026