Remote Sensing Correlations with Field Measurements of Tree and Stand Conditions in Forested Ecosystems
1.	Introduction: Bridging Field Data and Remote Sensing in Forest Assessment
The Imperative of Accurate Forest Assessment
Accurate and timely information regarding forest resources is paramount for sustainable management practices, effective carbon accounting, biodiversity conservation, and the formulation of sound environmental policies.1 Traditional forest inventories, while providing high-accuracy data at the plot level, often face limitations concerning cost, labor intensity, and the ability to achieve comprehensive spatial and temporal coverage, especially over large or inaccessible areas.3
The Transformative Role of Remote Sensing
Remote sensing technologies have emerged as powerful tools that offer cost-effective, scalable, and largely non-invasive methods for collecting data on forest conditions.2 These technologies enable both qualitative observations, such as determining if a change in forest condition has occurred, and quantitative assessments, such as measuring the extent of that change.2 The ability to gather data over vast expanses and with regular revisit capabilities makes remote sensing indispensable for modern forestry applications.5
Report Objectives and Scope
This report provides an edited AI-generated synthesis of how various types of remotely sensed data correlate with field-measured tree and stand conditions. It will review common field measurements, provide an overview of key remote sensing data sources, analyze the strength of correlations for a range of important forest attributes, discuss factors that influence these correlations, and conclude with a summary of best practices and future directions in the integration of these data sources for comprehensive forest assessment.
The evolution of forest monitoring reveals a clear trend: remote sensing is not a wholesale replacement for traditional field data but rather a powerful, synergistic partner. Field measurements remain the cornerstone for calibrating remote sensing models and validating their outputs, providing essential ground-truth information that remote sensors might generalize or miss entirely.7 For instance, while remote sensors can estimate parameters like canopy cover or height over large areas, the precise species identification or detailed understory characteristics often still rely on direct field observation.3 Many studies explicitly detail the use of ground-based data to refine and verify the accuracy of airborne or satellite-derived metrics, such as the integration of Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) metrics with ground-based data for improved estimates of forest volume and biomass 10, or the validation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)-derived canopy cover estimates using ground observations.11 The inherent limitations of field data, primarily related to cost and scalability for large-area inventories 2, are effectively addressed by remote sensing. Conversely, the indirect nature of remote sensing measurements and their susceptibility to atmospheric effects or signal saturation necessitate field data for robust accuracy assessment and model development.13 This interdependence suggests that the most robust and comprehensive forest assessment strategies will increasingly rely on the intelligent fusion of field measurements with diverse remote sensing data streams. Such integration allows practitioners to leverage the broad-scale, repetitive coverage of remote sensing to guide more targeted, efficient, and cost-effective field sampling campaigns, optimizing resource allocation and enhancing the overall accuracy and utility of forest inventories.
2.	Foundational Field Measurements for Tree and Stand Characterization
To effectively correlate remotely sensed data with on-the-ground forest conditions, it is essential to first define the foundational parameters traditionally measured through field surveys. These measurements provide the baseline or "ground truth" against which remote sensing estimates are compared and validated.
A. Individual Tree Parameters
Field assessments typically involve measuring several key attributes for individual trees within a sample plot:
●	Diameter at Breast Height (DBH): This is arguably the most fundamental tree measurement, defined as the stem diameter measured outside the bark at 4.5 feet (or 1.3 meters) above ground level on the uphill side of the tree.3 DBH is crucial for characterizing stand structure, determining tree basal area, and serves as a primary input for estimating tree volume and biomass.9 Common tools for DBH measurement include diameter tapes, Biltmore sticks, and calipers.3
●	Tree Height:
○	Total Height: This is the vertical distance from the groundline to the highest point of the tree crown.9 It is typically measured using instruments like clinometers or laser hypsometers. When combined with tree age, total height is essential for determining the site index, a measure of site productivity.3
○	Merchantable Height: This refers to the usable length of the tree stem from the stump to a defined upper diameter limit or the point where defects render the stem unusable for specific products (e.g., sawlogs).3 It is often measured in terms of the number of standard log lengths (e.g., 16-foot logs) and is critical for timber volume estimation.3
●	Crown Dimensions:
○	Crown Diameter/Width: This is the horizontal extent of the tree's crown, often measured as an average of two perpendicular widths. It is an important indicator of tree vigor, growing space, and is used in some volume and competition models.15 Field methods involve projecting the crown edge to the ground and measuring the distance.
○	Crown Length/Live Crown Ratio: Crown length is the vertical distance from the tree tip to the base of the live crown (lowest live branch whorl). The live crown ratio (crown length divided by total tree height) indicates tree vigor and can inform thinning decisions.9
●	Tree Species Identification: Accurate identification of tree species in the field is based on morphological characteristics such as leaves, bark, twigs, and form.1 This is fundamental for species-specific volume and biomass equations, biodiversity assessments, and understanding ecosystem dynamics.
●	Tree Age: Tree age can be determined by counting annual growth rings from an increment core extracted from the stem or from planting records in plantations.9 Age, in conjunction with height and DBH, provides insights into stand productivity and guides management recommendations.
●	Crown Class: This describes a tree's vertical position in the canopy relative to its neighbors and the amount of direct sunlight it receives. Common classes include dominant, codominant, intermediate, and suppressed.9 Crown class influences a tree's growth rate and survival probability.
B. Stand-Level Attributes
Beyond individual tree measurements, several attributes are quantified at the stand level, typically on a per-unit-area basis (e.g., per acre or per hectare):
●	Basal Area (BA):
○	Tree BA: The cross-sectional area of a single tree stem at DBH, calculated as BA=0.005454×2 (for BA in sq. ft.).9
○	Stand BA (BA per acre/hectare): The sum of the basal areas of all trees within a unit area.3 It is a key indicator of stand density and stocking, often measured efficiently in the field using a prism or angle gauge during variable-radius plot sampling.3
●	Trees Per Acre (TPA) / Density: The total number of live trees on a per-unit-area basis.9 This is a direct measure of stand density and is often tallied in fixed-radius plots.
●	Stand Volume: The total volume of wood (e.g., cubic feet or cubic meters per unit area) in a stand, typically calculated by summing the volumes of individual trees derived from DBH, height, and species-specific taper or volume equations.2
●	Aboveground Biomass (AGB) / Carbon Stock: The total dry weight of the aboveground components of trees (stem, bark, branches, leaves) per unit area.2 Carbon stock is typically estimated as a fraction (often around 50%) of AGB.17 These are critical parameters for carbon cycle studies and climate change mitigation efforts.
●	Leaf Area Index (LAI): Defined as one-half of the total green leaf area per unit ground surface area.18 LAI is a key biophysical parameter influencing light interception, photosynthesis, and evapotranspiration. Field estimation can involve direct methods (litterfall collection, destructive sampling) or indirect optical methods (e.g., hemispherical photography, LAI-2000 Plant Canopy Analyzer).20
●	Canopy Cover / Canopy Closure: The proportion of the ground area covered by the vertical projection of tree crowns.12 It is an indicator of stand density, light conditions at the forest floor, and wildlife habitat. Field estimation can involve ocular estimates, densiometers, or analysis of hemispherical photographs.22
●	Site Index (SI): A measure of the potential productivity of a forest site, typically defined as the average total height of dominant and codominant trees of a specific species at a specified base age (e.g., 50 years for hardwoods, 25 years for planted pine).9
The accurate measurement of these field parameters is foundational, as many are mathematically or empirically linked. For instance, DBH is not only a direct measure but also a primary input for calculating tree basal area. Subsequently, tree basal area, often combined with tree height, forms the basis for most allometric equations used to estimate individual tree volume and aboveground biomass.9 Errors in initial DBH or height measurements can therefore propagate, leading to inaccuracies in derived estimates of volume, biomass, and even stand-level summaries. Similarly, site index, a critical measure of land productivity, is directly derived from measurements of dominant tree height and age.9 This interconnectedness underscores the importance of precision in field data collection, as these data serve as the benchmark for calibrating and validating remote sensing approaches. Consequently, remote sensing techniques that can accurately and reliably estimate these fundamental parameters, such as DBH and height, hold significant potential to improve the efficiency and accuracy of broader forest inventories.
Table 1: Foundational Field Measurements in Forestry

Parameter	Definition	Typical Units	Common Field Measurement Tools/Methods	Key Snippets	
DBH	Stem diameter at 4.5 ft (1.3m) above ground	inches, cm	Diameter tape, Biltmore stick, calipers	3	
Total Height	Vertical distance from ground to tree top	feet, m	Clinometer, laser hypsometer, pole	3	
Merchantable Height	Usable stem length to a specific top diameter or defect	feet, m, # of logs	Biltmore stick, clinometer, visual estimation	3	
Crown Diameter	Horizontal extent of the tree crown	feet, m	Ground projection and tape measurement	15	
Crown Length	Vertical extent of the live crown	feet, m	Visual estimation, (Total Height - Height to Live Crown Base)	9	
Tree Age	Number of annual growth rings	years	Increment borer, planting records	9	
Basal Area (Tree)	Cross-sectional area of a tree stem at DBH	sq. ft., sq. m	Calculated from DBH	3	
Basal Area (Stand)	Sum of tree BA per unit area	sq. ft/ac, sq. m/ha	Prism, angle gauge, sum of tree BA from plot data	3	
Trees Per Acre (TPA)	Number of trees per unit area	trees/acre, trees/ha	Plot tally (fixed or variable radius)	9	
Stand Volume	Total wood volume per unit area	cu. ft/ac, cu. m/ha	Sum of individual tree volumes (from DBH, height, form factor/taper)	2	
Aboveground Biomass (AGB)	Total dry weight of aboveground tree components per unit area	tons/ac, Mg/ha	Allometric equations (from DBH, height, species), destructive sampling	2	
Leaf Area Index (LAI)	One-half total green leaf area per unit ground area	unitless (m2/m2)	LAI-2000, hemispherical photos, litter traps, destructive sampling	18	
Canopy Cover	Proportion of ground area covered by vertical projection of crowns	%	Densiometer, ocular estimation, hemispherical photos	12	
Site Index	Average height of dominant/codominant trees at a base age	feet, m	Height and age measurements of site trees, site index curves/equations	9	
3.	Remotely Sensed Data Sources for Forest Assessment
A variety of remote sensing technologies are employed in forestry, each operating on different principles and providing unique types of information about forest characteristics. These can be broadly categorized into passive systems, which measure naturally available energy, and active systems, which emit their own energy and measure the return signal.
A. Optical Remote Sensing
Optical remote sensing systems detect solar radiation reflected or emitted from the Earth's surface.5 The spectral reflectance signatures—how different materials reflect and absorb energy at different wavelengths—allow for the differentiation of targets, such as various tree species or vegetation health states.25
●	Multispectral Imagery: These sensors capture data in a few, relatively broad spectral bands, typically in the visible, near-infrared (NIR), and short-wave infrared (SWIR) portions of the electromagnetic spectrum.25 Examples include sensors aboard satellites like Landsat (e.g., Thematic Mapper, Operational Land Imager), Sentinel-2 (MultiSpectral Instrument), and MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer), as well as aerial optical imagery captured from aircraft or UAVs.2 Panchromatic imagery, a type of multispectral data, consists of a single broad band, often covering the visible spectrum, resulting in a "black-and-white" image that measures the apparent brightness of targets.25
●	Hyperspectral Imagery: Also known as imaging spectrometry, hyperspectral sensors acquire data in many (often hundreds) narrow, contiguous spectral bands.25 This high spectral resolution allows for the detection of subtle variations in spectral signatures, enabling more precise characterization and identification of materials, including different tree species, their biochemical composition (e.g., chlorophyll, nitrogen, water content), and stress indicators.2
B. LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging)
LiDAR is an active remote sensing technology that emits laser pulses towards a target and measures the time it takes for the reflected pulses to return to the sensor.2 This information is used to calculate precise distances, which, combined with the sensor's position and orientation (determined by GPS and an Inertial Measurement Unit - IMU), generates a dense three-dimensional (3D) point cloud representing the surface and objects upon it.28 LiDAR is particularly valuable for directly measuring forest vertical structure.16
Different LiDAR platforms are used in forestry:
●	Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS): LiDAR systems mounted on aircraft (planes or helicopters) that scan large areas, providing detailed DTMs and information on canopy structure.10
●	Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS): Ground-based static scanners that provide extremely detailed point clouds of individual trees and plots from below the canopy, excellent for measuring stem diameter, branch architecture, and understory characteristics.28
●	Handheld Mobile Laser Scanning (HMLS): Portable LiDAR systems carried by an operator, allowing for rapid data collection in forest plots.6
●	UAV-borne LiDAR (Drones): LiDAR sensors mounted on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles offer a flexible and increasingly cost-effective means of acquiring high-density point clouds for plot to small stand-level assessments.2
●	Spaceborne LiDAR: Satellite-based LiDAR systems, such as GEDI (Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation) and ICESat-2, provide global or near-global sampled measurements of forest vertical structure, including canopy height and profiles.4
C. SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar)
SAR is an active microwave remote sensing technology that transmits radar pulses and records the intensity and phase of the backscattered signals.33 A key advantage of SAR is its ability to penetrate clouds, haze, and smoke, and operate day or night, making it highly valuable for monitoring in frequently cloud-covered regions, such as the tropics.35 The interaction of microwaves with forest components (leaves, branches, trunks, ground) depends on the radar wavelength (or frequency band), polarization, and incidence angle, as well as the structural and dielectric properties (moisture content) of the forest.35
●	SAR Bands: Different SAR bands offer varying penetration capabilities:
○	X-band (approx. 3 cm wavelength): Interacts primarily with the upper canopy, leaves, and small branches.35
○	C-band (approx. 5-6 cm wavelength): Penetrates somewhat deeper into the canopy, sensitive to medium-sized branches and foliage.35
○	L-band (approx. 20-24 cm wavelength): Has significant penetration capability, interacting with larger branches and tree trunks, and is sensitive to forest biomass and soil moisture beneath the canopy.37
○	P-band (approx. 30-100 cm wavelength): Offers the deepest penetration, interacting strongly with tree trunks and the ground surface, making it highly sensitive to forest biomass, especially in dense forests.38
●	SAR Techniques:
○	Polarimetry (PolSAR): Utilizes different polarizations of the transmitted and received radar waves (e.g., HH, HV, VH, VV) to derive more detailed information about the scattering mechanisms within the forest, which can help differentiate structural components and improve biomass estimation.37
○	Interferometry (InSAR): Uses the phase difference between two SAR images acquired from slightly different positions or at different times to measure surface topography and deformation, or to estimate forest height by analyzing coherence (the correlation between the two signals).32
○	Polarimetric Interferometry (PolInSAR): Combines polarimetric and interferometric information to enhance the characterization of forest vertical structure and height.37
D. Thermal Remote Sensing
Thermal remote sensing systems are typically passive sensors that measure the thermal infrared radiation emitted by objects on the Earth's surface.44 The intensity of this emitted radiation is related to the object's temperature. In forestry, Land Surface Temperature (LST) is a key parameter derived from thermal data and is used as an indicator of various physiological processes and conditions, such as evapotranspiration, vegetation water stress, and fire risk.46
The fundamental distinction between active sensors like LiDAR and SAR, which generate their own illumination, and passive sensors like optical and thermal systems, which rely on external energy sources (sunlight or emitted heat), dictates their operational capabilities and the type of information they provide. Active systems offer the advantage of day-and-night operation, and SAR, in particular, can penetrate cloud cover, ensuring data acquisition continuity in regions where optical sensors are frequently hampered.35 This makes SAR invaluable for consistent monitoring in tropical rainforests or during persistently cloudy seasons. LiDAR's active nature allows for direct 3D structural measurements, which is a unique capability not offered by passive optical systems that primarily capture 2D spectral information.28 Passive optical sensors, however, provide rich spectral information related to vegetation biochemistry and health, which active sensors typically do not capture as directly.25 Thermal sensors provide insights into the energy balance and physiological status of vegetation.44 Therefore, the selection of a sensor or a combination of sensors is critically dependent on the specific forest attribute being assessed, the environmental conditions of the study area, and the desired frequency and scale of monitoring.
4.	Correlation of Remotely Sensed Data with Field-Measured Forest Attributes
The correlation between remotely sensed data and field-measured forest attributes is fundamental to leveraging remote sensing for efficient and large-scale forest assessment. Different sensor types and derived metrics show varying degrees of success in estimating specific tree and stand parameters. This section details these correlations, supported by reported accuracies where available.
A. Optical Data Correlations
Optical sensors, including multispectral and hyperspectral systems, provide valuable information based on the spectral reflectance properties of vegetation.
1. Canopy Cover and Leaf Area Index (LAI)
Canopy cover and LAI are critical indicators of vegetation density, health, and photosynthetic capacity.
●	Data & Methods: Multispectral data from Landsat, Sentinel-2, and MODIS are widely used for estimating these parameters.11 Spectral Vegetation Indices (SVIs) such as the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), Green NDVI (GNDVI), Modified Soil-Adjusted Vegetation Index (MSAVI), Modified Triangular Vegetation Index 2 (MTVI2), and Atmospherically Resistant Vegetation Index (ARVI) are commonly calculated from these data to enhance the vegetation signal and correlate with canopy cover and LAI.11 Machine learning algorithms, including Random Forest, Support Vector Machines (SVM), Classification and Regression Trees (CART), and Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), are frequently employed to model the relationships between SVIs and field-measured LAI or canopy cover.11 Radiative Transfer Models (RTMs), such as PROSAIL, are also used, often in conjunction with tools like the Sentinel Application Platform (SNAP) toolbox, to retrieve biophysical variables like LAI from satellite imagery.51
●	Correlation Strength & Accuracy:
○	Studies using Sentinel-2 and Landsat-8 data to retrieve Canopy Water Content (CWC), a parameter closely related to LAI and canopy density, have reported strong correlations (R) of 0.81 and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 0.046 g/cm2.50 MODIS-derived CWC maps also show reasonable seasonal and spatial patterns when compared to other data sources.50
○	For LAI estimation using Sentinel-2 and Landsat OLI, correlations with Land Surface Temperature (LST) have been observed, with R² values varying seasonally from 0.36 to 0.46.51 The SNAP toolbox, when used to derive LAI from Sentinel-2, demonstrated a correlation (R²) of 0.74 with ground-measured LAI, with an RMSE of 0.53.51
○	The Harmonized Landsat and Sentinel-2 (HLS) product, particularly when using EVI2-based models, has shown good performance for LAI estimation, achieving RMSE values in the range of 1.27 to 1.38 across various crop types.52 The SNAP biophysical processor for Sentinel-2 LAI yielded an RMSE of 1.38 but tended to underestimate high LAI values.52
○	Global LAI products from MODIS, such as MOD15A2H (500m/1km resolution, 8-day frequency), are widely used. Reprocessed versions like HiQ-LAI aim to improve spatiotemporal consistency and have shown a decrease in RMSE from 0.87 to 0.78 when compared against ground measurements, relative to the raw MODIS LAI product.20
○	A canopy cover map for Türkiye, produced using GEDI photon-counting data combined with ancillary Landsat images, reported an average accuracy of over 70%.12
●	Key Observations: While SVIs from optical data show strong correlations with canopy cover and LAI under stable conditions, their predictive accuracy can decline significantly during periods of extreme stress, such as pest outbreaks or seasonal leaf fall.11 Time-series analysis is crucial for capturing these dynamics.
2. Tree Species Identification
Identifying tree species is essential for detailed forest inventory, biodiversity assessment, and management.
●	Data & Methods: Both multispectral (especially time-series data from Sentinel-2 and Landsat) and hyperspectral imagery are employed for tree species classification.1 The phenological changes captured by multi-temporal satellite imagery significantly enhance the spectral separability between different tree species.56 Hyperspectral sensors provide hundreds of narrow, contiguous bands, allowing for the capture of detailed spectral signatures unique to different species, which are related to leaf pigments, water content, and structure.26 Machine learning algorithms, particularly Random Forest, are commonly used for classification.56
●	Correlation Strength & Accuracy:
○	Sentinel-2 time-series data have been shown to improve forest tree species mapping accuracy by approximately 5–10% in overall accuracy (OA) compared to using single-date imagery. Combining images from spring (leaf-out) and autumn (senescence) often yields the best species discrimination, with OAs exceeding 90% in some studies.56
○	Hyperspectral imagery, due to its rich spectral information, generally provides higher accuracy for species identification than multispectral data when used alone. For instance, one study reported an OA of 86.08% using hyperspectral features alone in a complex mixed forest.57 Vegetation indices sensitive to chlorophyll, anthocyanin, and carotene content, as well as transformed components from Independent Component Analysis (ICA) or Minimum Noise Fraction (MNF), are often important features.57
○	Fusion of hyperspectral data with LiDAR data (providing structural information) consistently yields higher accuracies than either sensor alone. For example, fusing UAV-based hyperspectral and LiDAR data achieved an OA of 89.20% 57, and another study reported 75.7% OA with fusion compared to 64.8% (hyperspectral alone) and 60.0% (LiDAR alone) in natural secondary forests.58
○	MODIS data, with its coarser spatial resolution (250m-1km), is generally used for mapping broad forest types (e.g., evergreen, deciduous, mixed forests) rather than individual species. These classifications rely heavily on the temporal signatures derived from vegetation indices like NDVI and EVI, which capture seasonal phenological patterns.59
●	Key Observations: The high spectral resolution of hyperspectral data is powerful for distinguishing subtle differences between species. However, multispectral time series, like those from Sentinel-2, leverage phenological differences to achieve high classification accuracies, often at lower cost and with greater temporal consistency.
3. Forest Health, Stress, and Disturbance Monitoring
Optical remote sensing is widely used to monitor forest health, detect stress from biotic (insects, diseases) and abiotic (drought, fire) factors, and map disturbances.
●	Data & Methods: Hyperspectral imagery is particularly effective for early detection of plant stress by identifying subtle changes in leaf biochemistry and physiology (e.g., chlorophyll content, water content, pigment changes) before visual symptoms become apparent.26 Specific spectral regions in the visible, NIR, and SWIR, as well as derived vegetation indices, are analyzed.62 Multispectral time-series data from Sentinel-2 and Landsat are used to map disturbances such as clearcuts, fire scars, and areas affected by drought or insect defoliation, often employing vegetation indices like NDVI, Z-score NDVI (Z·NDVI), and machine learning classifiers.64 MODIS EVI time series, analyzed with non-parametric phenology reconstruction techniques, can help distinguish between abrupt (e.g., fire, windthrow) and gradual (e.g., insect outbreak, drought stress) disturbances.59
●	Correlation Strength & Accuracy:
○	For forest disturbance mapping using Sentinel-2 time series in Germany, an overall accuracy of 99.1% was achieved (though this was heavily weighted by the large proportion of undisturbed forest). For the disturbed forest class, user's accuracy was 84.4% and producer's accuracy was 85.1%.64 Accuracy was found to vary depending on the cause, severity, and patch size of the disturbance.
○	A study using Sentinel-2 and machine learning to detect drought and frost damage reported 71% user and total accuracy for damage assessment and 81.9% accuracy for tree species classification within the damaged areas.65
○	Hyperspectral remote sensing can detect biochemical shifts related to stress (e.g., changes in chlorophyll fluorescence) before visible symptoms manifest.63 Multi-Mode Analytics (MMA), which integrates hyperspectral data with image-based phenotyping and machine learning, shows promise for improving the accuracy of stress detection.63
○	For estimating foliar nitrogen content, hyperspectral data in the 710–790 nm NIR region is critical for correcting canopy structural influences, often using metrics like the Directional Area Scattering Factor (DASF).68 Chlorophyll content estimation from hyperspectral data can achieve high accuracies, with R² values often exceeding 0.85 using empirical models and over 0.90 with hybrid RTM and machine learning approaches, especially when red-edge and derivative spectral features are utilized.69
●	Key Observations: The temporal dimension is critical for optical remote sensing of forest dynamics. Time-series analysis of multispectral data, such as from Sentinel-2, allows for the tracking of phenological cycles, which aids in species identification, and the detection of abrupt or gradual changes indicative of disturbances. Hyperspectral data, while offering unparalleled spectral detail for assessing biochemical and biophysical status at a specific point in time, often has lower temporal resolution compared to operational multispectral satellites. The ideal approach often involves leveraging the strengths of both: the frequent revisit times of multispectral sensors for monitoring changes and the detailed spectral information of hyperspectral sensors for in-depth characterization, particularly for stress detection and biochemical analysis. The fusion of these capabilities, perhaps through upscaling hyperspectral insights with more frequently acquired multispectral data, represents a significant area for advancement.
B. LiDAR Data Correlations
LiDAR technology directly measures the 3D structure of forests, providing highly accurate data on various tree and stand parameters.
1. Tree Height, DBH, and Crown Characteristics
LiDAR's ability to capture precise vertical information makes it exceptionally well-suited for measuring tree heights and characterizing crowns.
●	Data & Methods: Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) is widely used for accurate tree height estimation, often from Canopy Height Models (CHMs) derived by subtracting a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) from a Digital Surface Model (DSM).10 Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) provides highly detailed, ground-based point clouds for precise DBH measurements and characterization of lower crown structure.28 Handheld Mobile Laser Scanning (HMLS) and UAV-borne LiDAR are increasingly used for plot-to-stand level assessments, offering a balance of detail and coverage.2 Individual Tree Detection (ITD) algorithms segment tree crowns from point clouds, allowing for the extraction of individual tree metrics such as height percentiles, maximum and mean height, and sometimes intensity values which can be related to foliage density or species.15 Quantitative Structure Models (QSMs) derived from TLS data can reconstruct detailed 3D models of individual trees, enabling precise measurement of stem and branch dimensions.75
●	Correlation Strength & Accuracy:
○	Tree Height:
■	ALS-derived tree heights typically show high correlation with field measurements. RMSE values are often around 1.25 m (relative RMSE ~5.5%) with a slight tendency for underestimation (bias ~ -0.88 m).29 ALS has proven robust across various stand conditions, with reliability increasing for taller trees.78 The integration of ALS and HMLS can yield even more precise height estimations, with reported RMSE of 1.43 m and bias of -0.3 m.31
■	HMLS alone tends to underestimate tree height more significantly (RMSE 2.85 m, bias -2.34 m), primarily due to occlusion in the upper canopy.31
■	TLS can provide very accurate height measurements for trees typically under 15–20 m, with RMSE values as low as 0.3 m reported even in dense tropical forests, though occlusion of treetops can be a challenge for taller trees.30
○	DBH:
■	TLS is the most accurate LiDAR method for DBH estimation, with R² values ranging from 0.91 to 0.97 when compared to field measurements.30 Algorithms like the Shape Diameter Function (SDF) applied to TLS data in tropical forests have shown RMSE values around 3.67 cm, outperforming methods like RANSAC and Hough transform, especially for large or irregularly shaped trees.72 In temperate forests with more regular stem forms, algorithms like Nelder-Mead or least squares fitting to TLS data can achieve RMSEs around 1.6 cm.73
■	HMLS also provides accurate DBH estimates (RMSE ~1.46 cm), and integrating it with ALS (RMSE ~1.38 cm) does not significantly improve DBH accuracy over HMLS alone.31 ALS by itself is generally not suitable for direct DBH measurement due to the nadir viewing angle and insufficient point density at breast height.31 However, some studies using high-density ALS data or indirect methods (allometric relationships with crown metrics) have reported DBH RMSEs around 13%.74
○	Crown Characteristics (Diameter, Base Height, Volume):
■	ALS can estimate dominant tree crown diameters with R² values of 0.62–0.63 and RMSEs of 1.36–1.41 m.15 It can also estimate crown base height with RMSEs in the range of 20–30%.74
■	TLS allows for accurate measurement of crown width (R² 0.84, RMSE 1.08 m compared to field data) 30 and detailed characterization of crown length and width using QSMs.75
■	ALS-derived crown volume, using techniques like 3D alpha shapes or convex hulls, has shown correlations (R² up to 0.83) with field-approximated volumes, though it tends to underestimate actual crown volume, primarily due to insufficient point returns from lower crown regions.80
●	Key Observations: LiDAR's direct 3D measurement capability makes it superior for structural parameters. ALS excels for top-of-canopy height and DTM generation over large areas. TLS provides unparalleled detail for DBH and lower crown structure at the plot level. HMLS and UAV-LiDAR offer a balance, with improving capabilities for individual tree metrics.
2. Stand Volume and Aboveground Biomass (AGB)
LiDAR's structural measurements are strongly correlated with stand volume and AGB.
●	Data & Methods: ALS is predominantly used for stand-level AGB and volume estimation. Area-Based Approaches (ABA) are common, where statistical models relate LiDAR-derived metrics (e.g., height percentiles, mean/max canopy height, canopy density metrics, intensity values) from plots to field-measured volume or AGB.10 Individual Tree Crown (ITC) approaches, which first delineate individual trees and estimate their attributes, can also be used, especially with higher density LiDAR.15 TLS, combined with QSMs, allows for highly accurate, non-destructive estimation of individual tree and plot-level AGB and volume by reconstructing detailed stem and branch structures.75 LiDAR-derived crown diameter has been shown to be an important predictor that can improve volume and biomass models.15
●	Correlation Strength & Accuracy:
○	ALS-based AGB estimations typically achieve high accuracy, with R² values often reported up to 0.97 in some studies 10, although accuracy can be lower in structurally complex forests.84 Stand volume RMSEs around 6% have been reported using ALS.82 For pre-harvest sawlog volume, ALS models achieved RMSEs of 9.1% (theoretical volume) and 18.0% (factual volume, accounting for defects).81
○	Even freely available, lower-density ALS data (often acquired for topographic mapping) can adequately predict forest structural components and AGB, with R² values for various parameters including biomass ranging from 0.34 to 0.82, and relative RMSEs from 7% to 36%.83
○	TLS with QSMs has demonstrated very high accuracy for AGB estimation, especially for large tropical trees, outperforming traditional allometric equations. One study reported a coefficient of variation of RMSE (CV-RMSE) of 28.37% and a concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) of 0.95 against destructive harvest data.76 For coniferous stem volume, TLS-derived estimates showed R² = 0.97 (compared to a taper model) with an RMSE of 0.351 m³.86
○	A comparative study found large-footprint LiDAR (LVIS) to be the best single sensor for biomass estimation (R² = 0.77, RMSE = 75.3 Mg/ha). Combining LVIS with ETM+ optical data slightly improved these estimates (R² = 0.80).87
●	Key Observations: LiDAR's ability to accurately measure tree height and canopy structural attributes, which are strong predictors of volume and biomass, underpins its success. Unlike optical and SAR sensors, LiDAR measurements of AGB are less prone to signal saturation in high biomass forests.16
3. Canopy Structure, Canopy Cover, and LAI
LiDAR directly quantifies the 3D distribution of canopy elements.
●	Data & Methods: All LiDAR platforms (ALS, TLS, UAV-LiDAR, GEDI) provide direct measurements of vertical canopy structure, including canopy heights, vertical profiles of returns, canopy layers, and gap fractions.28 Canopy cover can be estimated from the proportion of LiDAR returns from vegetation versus ground, or from the density of canopy hits.12 LAI is often estimated indirectly using LiDAR data through its correlation with gap fraction (derived from laser penetration metrics like LPI, based on the Beer-Lambert law) or through allometric relationships with LiDAR-derived structural parameters like canopy height and foliage density.4
●	Correlation Strength & Accuracy:
○	ALS-derived canopy vertical profiles (CVPs) are effective for characterizing changes in canopy layering and light availability, which relate to forest structural complexity.89
○	GEDI spaceborne LiDAR data, when used to estimate canopy cover (often by relating the ratio of canopy returns to total returns), can be combined with SAR and optical imagery to produce large-area canopy cover maps. For instance, a GEDI-based canopy cover map for Florida achieved an R² of 0.69 (internal validation) and R² of 0.70 (external validation against ALS data).92
○	LiDAR for LAI estimation in agricultural crops (sorghum and maize) using data from wheeled vehicles and UAVs showed R² values ranging from approximately 0.4 to 0.6 for sorghum and 0.5 to 0.80 for maize, when compared to indirect field measurements from a plant canopy analyzer.21 TLS is considered effective for estimating LAI and vertical foliage profiles (VFP) at the plot level, though factors like clumping, occlusion, and woody material can affect accuracy.18
●	Key Observations: LiDAR provides unparalleled detail on the 3D arrangement of canopy elements, making it highly suitable for characterizing complex canopy structures and deriving metrics like canopy cover and gap fraction, which are then used to infer LAI.
4. Digital Terrain Models (DTM) and Digital Surface Models (DSM)
Accurate terrain models are a fundamental product from LiDAR, essential for many forestry applications.
●	Data & Methods: LiDAR, particularly ALS, excels at generating high-resolution and high-accuracy DTMs by effectively filtering laser returns that penetrate the canopy to reach the ground.10 DSMs capture the elevation of the uppermost surface, whether it's the ground, vegetation, or buildings.70 Canopy Height Models (CHMs), representing the actual height of vegetation above the ground, are commonly derived by subtracting the DTM from the DSM (CHM = DSM - DTM).10
●	Importance: An accurate DTM is crucial for normalizing LiDAR point clouds, allowing for the calculation of true vegetation heights above ground. This normalization is a prerequisite for accurate estimation of tree height, stand volume, and biomass from LiDAR data. DSMs are the basis for CHM generation, which is widely used for individual tree detection and height measurement.
●	Key Observations: The ability of LiDAR to "see" through canopy gaps and record ground returns, even in relatively dense forests, is a key advantage over other remote sensing methods like photogrammetry for DTM generation under vegetation.94
The direct measurement of 3D forest structure by LiDAR systems underpins its strong correlations with a wide array of field-measured parameters. From individual tree heights and crown dimensions to stand-level volume, biomass, and complex canopy architecture, LiDAR provides data that is often more directly related to these attributes than data from passive optical or SAR sensors. Optical sensors primarily capture spectral responses related to biochemistry and surface characteristics, while SAR interacts with structure and moisture in a more complex manner. LiDAR's geometric measurements, however, offer a more straightforward pathway to quantifying physical dimensions. This is evident in the consistently high R² values and low RMSEs reported in studies comparing LiDAR-derived metrics to field data for parameters like tree height and biomass, often outperforming or significantly complementing other sensor types. Furthermore, LiDAR's capacity to accurately map the ground surface beneath vegetation is critical for deriving true vegetation heights, a foundational element for many subsequent estimations. While other sensors may infer height or structure indirectly, LiDAR's direct ranging capability provides a fundamental advantage, reducing reliance on complex allometric or radiative transfer models for initial structural characterization. This directness is a key reason why LiDAR is often considered the benchmark for structural forest assessment.
The utility and challenges associated with different LiDAR platforms are strongly scale-dependent. ALS is well-suited for landscape to regional-scale assessments, providing wall-to-wall coverage for parameters like top-of-canopy height, DTMs, and area-based estimates of AGB.29 However, due to typical point densities and the top-down perspective, ALS may struggle with precise DBH estimation for individual trees or detailed characterization of understory vegetation.74 TLS, conversely, offers unparalleled detail at the plot or individual tree level from a ground-based perspective.30 It excels in accurately measuring DBH, stem taper, and lower crown architecture, making it ideal for calibrating allometric models or detailed structural studies. Its main limitations are the labor-intensive nature of data acquisition for larger areas and occlusion effects in the upper canopy.78 UAV-LiDAR and HMLS are emerging as intermediate solutions, providing higher point densities than traditional ALS over smaller areas and greater mobility than TLS, respectively.17 Spaceborne LiDAR missions like GEDI offer global-scale sampling of forest structure, which is invaluable for large-area biomass mapping, particularly when fused with other data sources, but their coverage is inherently sampled rather than wall-to-wall.4 This hierarchy of platforms implies that no single LiDAR system is universally optimal; the choice must be tailored to the specific research question, desired level of detail, spatial extent, and available budget. Often, a multi-scale strategy, combining data from different LiDAR platforms (e.g., ALS for broad coverage, supplemented by TLS or UAV-LiDAR for detailed plot-level calibration and validation), can provide the most comprehensive and accurate forest inventory information.
C. SAR Data Correlations
SAR's ability to penetrate cloud and canopy, and its sensitivity to structure and moisture, make it a valuable tool for forestry, particularly in regions or conditions where optical sensors are limited.
1. Forest Biomass (AGB) and Volume
SAR backscatter intensity and phase information are correlated with forest AGB and volume, with performance varying by wavelength and technique.
●	Data & Methods: Longer SAR wavelengths, such as L-band (e.g., ALOS PALSAR) and P-band, exhibit stronger correlations with AGB and volume due to their ability to penetrate deeper into the forest canopy and interact with larger woody components like trunks and main branches.38 Shorter wavelengths like C-band (e.g., RADARSAT-2, Sentinel-1) and X-band interact more with smaller branches, leaves, and the upper canopy, leading to signal saturation at lower biomass levels.35 Polarimetric SAR (PolSAR) data, which provides information on different scattering mechanisms (surface, double-bounce, volume), is particularly useful.37 Interferometric SAR (InSAR) coherence can also be related to biomass. Modeling approaches include empirical regressions, machine learning algorithms (e.g., Random Forest), and physics-based models like the Water Cloud Model (WCM) or its extensions.38
●	Correlation Strength & Accuracy:
○	Combinations of L-band and P-band SAR data generally yield the best AGB estimation results. Studies using multivariate linear stepwise regression (MLSR) with L+P band data have reported R² values of 0.67 and RMSE of 14.51 Mg/ha. Random Forest models with L+P band data achieved R² of 0.64 and RMSE of 15.20 Mg/ha.38
○	C-band RADARSAT-2 data, particularly using texture parameters derived from dual-polarization intensity data, has shown potential for estimating AGB up to 360 t/ha with an adjusted R² of 0.78 and an RMSE of 28.68 t/ha.97
○	L-band ALOS PALSAR PolSAR data, when used with an extended WCM and after compensation for Polarization Orientation Angle (POA) shift, achieved an R² of 0.78 and RMSE of 59.77 t/ha for AGB retrieval.40
○	A significant limitation of SAR for biomass estimation is signal saturation. X-band and C-band data typically saturate at AGB levels around 60–70 Mg/ha, while L-band and P-band saturate at higher levels, around 90–100 Mg/ha or more, especially when polarimetric information is used.38
●	Key Observations: Longer SAR wavelengths are crucial for AGB estimation in denser forests. Polarimetric and interferometric techniques enhance the information extracted. Data fusion with optical or LiDAR data can help mitigate saturation issues and improve overall accuracy.88
2. Forest Structure (Canopy Height, Density)
SAR, particularly InSAR and PolInSAR techniques, can provide estimates of forest canopy height and structural parameters.
●	Data & Methods: InSAR techniques utilize the phase difference or coherence between two SAR acquisitions to estimate height. Longer wavelengths like L-band are generally preferred for canopy height estimation due to better penetration through the canopy to the ground, which is needed as a reference.32 X-band InSAR (e.g., TanDEM-X) focuses on volumetric decorrelation near the top of the canopy to infer height.42 Physical models like the Random Volume over Ground (RVoG) model are often employed to invert InSAR data for height.42 Deep learning approaches (e.g., Convolutional Neural Networks - CNNs) are also being used with InSAR features (coherence, volume decorrelation, backscatter) for height estimation.42 SAR backscatter intensity, particularly at certain polarizations, can also be related to canopy density or cover.36
●	Correlation Strength & Accuracy:
○	Fusion of L-band InSAR (from ALOS-2) with GEDI LiDAR data for large-scale forest height mapping has yielded RMSE values of 3–4 meters in flat areas and 4–5 meters in hilly areas.32
○	TanDEM-X (X-band InSAR) data processed with deep learning models achieved an RMSE of 6.12 m and R² of 0.69 for forest height estimation using volumetric decorrelation and vertical wavenumber as inputs.42
○	L-band SAR signals exhibit strong canopy penetration ability and sensitivity to forest vertical structures.37
○	When Sentinel-1 SAR data was combined with GEDI LiDAR and optical imagery for canopy cover mapping in Florida, the model achieved an R² of 0.69 (internal validation) and R² of 0.70 (external validation against ALS data).92
●	Key Observations: InSAR and PolInSAR are the primary SAR techniques for direct height estimation. The accuracy is influenced by wavelength, baseline, forest density, and terrain. Fusion with LiDAR data shows significant promise for improving large-scale height maps.
3. Soil Moisture under Canopy
L-band SAR's penetration capability makes it suitable for estimating soil moisture even under forest canopies.
●	Data & Methods: L-band SAR is preferred due to its ability to penetrate vegetation and reach the soil surface.100 VV (vertical transmit, vertical receive) polarization often shows better sensitivity to soil moisture under vegetation compared to HH (horizontal-horizontal) or cross-pol (HV, VH).98 Retrieval methods often involve inverting physical scattering models or using machine learning approaches.98
●	Correlation Strength & Accuracy:
○	Using L-band airborne SAR data with VV polarization and inverting physical scattering models, soil moisture under forest canopies has been retrieved with an unbiased RMSE of 0.044 m3/m3 and correlations ranging from 0.71 to 0.84 with in-situ measurements.100
○	A systematic review of microwave remote sensing for soil moisture (including SAR) found that active sensors (like SAR) achieved a median R² of 0.7 and a median RMSE of 0.035 m3/m3.98 The VV+VH polarization combination was reported to yield the highest accuracy among active sensor configurations.101
●	Key Observations: Vegetation cover and soil roughness significantly affect SAR backscatter and thus the accuracy of soil moisture retrieval. L-band VV polarization appears most promising.
4. Forest Change Detection and Disturbance
SAR's all-weather, day/night capability makes it highly effective for continuous monitoring of forest change and disturbances.
●	Data & Methods: Time series of SAR imagery (e.g., from Sentinel-1) are analyzed to detect changes in backscatter intensity or coherence.35 Deforestation often results in a change from volume scattering (forest) to surface scattering (bare ground or low vegetation), leading to a decrease in cross-polarized (HV or VH) backscatter.35 Forest degradation may cause a more subtle reduction in volume scattering.
●	Correlation Strength & Accuracy:
○	Integrating SAR (Sentinel-1) with LiDAR (GEDI, ICESat-2) and optical (Sentinel-2) data has been shown to significantly improve the accuracy of forest change mapping, with reported improvements of 15% in precision and 13% in F1-score compared to using optical and SAR alone.66
●	Key Observations: SAR is particularly valuable for disturbance monitoring in tropical regions due to frequent cloud cover. The consistency of SAR acquisitions allows for near real-time monitoring systems.
The effectiveness of SAR in forestry applications is fundamentally tied to the interaction of microwaves with different components of the forest, which is heavily influenced by the radar wavelength. Shorter wavelengths like X-band (~3 cm) and C-band (~5-6 cm) primarily interact with the upper canopy elements such as leaves and smaller branches.35 This limits their penetration and makes them saturate quickly with increasing biomass, rendering them less suitable for AGB estimation in dense or mature forests, though they can be useful for canopy density or upper structure characterization. Conversely, longer wavelengths like L-band (~23 cm) and P-band (~40-70 cm) penetrate much deeper into the forest canopy, interacting with larger branches, tree trunks, and even the ground surface.35 This deeper penetration is why L- and P-bands exhibit higher saturation levels for biomass estimation and are the preferred frequencies for AGB studies in moderate to high biomass forests.38 They are also more sensitive to changes in overall forest volume and are better suited for estimating forest height using interferometric techniques that require a ground return or significant penetration.32 For soil moisture estimation under canopy, L-band's ability to penetrate vegetation is also critical.100 This wavelength-dependent interaction dictates that there isn't a single "best" SAR band for all forestry tasks; rather, the choice must be carefully matched to the specific parameter of interest and the structural characteristics of the forest being studied. Multi-frequency SAR approaches, which combine data from different bands, can leverage these distinct sensitivities to provide a more comprehensive characterization of forest structure and biomass.38
D. Thermal Data Correlations
Thermal remote sensing measures emitted thermal infrared radiation, providing information on Land Surface Temperature (LST), which is correlated with vegetation physiological status.
1. Evapotranspiration (ET) and Water Stress
LST is a key indicator of ET rates and vegetation water stress.
●	Data & Methods: Thermal data from sensors like MODIS, Landsat, ECOSTRESS, and UAV-mounted thermal cameras are used to derive LST.19 When plants are water-stressed, their stomata close to conserve water, leading to reduced transpiration and an increase in leaf and canopy temperature.46 ET is often estimated using surface energy balance models (e.g., SEBS, SSEB, SEBAL, METRIC, TSEB, ALEXI), which use LST as a primary input to calculate sensible heat flux and derive latent heat flux (energy used in ET) as a residual.19 Empirical methods, such as the LST-NDVI "triangle" or "trapezoid" methods, relate LST and vegetation index patterns to moisture availability and ET.105 Specific indices like the Crop Water Stress Index (CWSI), which compares actual canopy temperature to reference temperatures of well-watered and severely stressed vegetation, are widely used, especially with UAV thermal data.47
●	Correlation Strength & Accuracy:
○	The ECOSTRESS mission, specifically designed to measure ET using thermal data, provides products at 70m resolution. Validation against eddy covariance tower measurements showed strong performance (r² = 0.88, overall bias 8%, normalized RMSE 6%).107 The high spatial resolution of ECOSTRESS significantly improved correlations (by 85%) and RMSE (by 62%) compared to 1 km pixels.107
○	MODIS LST, combined with other MODIS products (NDVI, LAI) and meteorological data in Artificial Neural Network (ANN) models, has been used to estimate daily ET with R² values ranging from 0.52 to 0.86.19
○	UAV-based thermal imagery for CWSI calculation has shown strong correlations with field-measured plant water status indicators, such as stem water potential (R² = 0.92) and stomatal conductance (R² = 0.97) in orchards.47
○	The relationship between LST and NDVI is typically negative when water availability is the limiting factor for vegetation growth, making this relationship useful for drought monitoring.105
●	Key Observations: Thermal data provides a direct link to plant physiological responses to water availability. Higher spatial resolution thermal data (e.g., ECOSTRESS, UAVs) offers significant improvements in accuracy for ET and water stress assessment.
2. Forest Fire Risk Assessment
LST is an important indicator of fuel moisture content and overall fire risk.
●	Data & Methods: LST derived from sensors like MODIS, Landsat, and ASTER is used to assess fire risk.5 An increase in LST can indicate drying of vegetation and soil, which increases fuel flammability.48 The thermal inertia method, which uses day and night LST differences, can be related to soil and fuel moisture content.48 LST is often combined with vegetation indices like NDVI to create fire risk indices, as vegetation greenness also relates to moisture content.48
●	Correlation Strength & Accuracy:
○	Studies using MODIS LST have observed that LST tends to increase approximately three days before a fire event, serving as an early warning indicator.110 LST values exceeding 30°C have been associated with high fire risk.110
○	For post-fire analysis, a high correlation (0.90) has been found between the difference in LST (dLST) before and after a fire and the difference in the Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR), a common spectral index for burn severity.110
●	Key Observations: LST provides a direct measure of surface heating, which is closely linked to fuel dryness. Thermal data is a valuable component in multi-factor fire risk assessment systems.
Thermal remote sensing primarily provides information about the temperature of the land surface, which is not a direct measure of forest structure (like height or biomass) but rather an indicator of the energy balance and physiological status of the vegetation. Its strong correlation with field measurements is most evident for parameters related to water availability and plant function. For instance, as plants transpire, they cool their leaves; thus, an increase in leaf or canopy temperature detected by thermal sensors can signify reduced transpiration due to stomatal closure, which is a common response to water stress.46 This makes thermal data highly effective for assessing evapotranspiration rates and detecting drought stress in forests and crops.109 Similarly, the moisture content of forest fuels is a critical factor in fire risk, and as fuels dry out, their temperature tends to increase, a change detectable by thermal sensors.48 Therefore, the correlation of thermal data with structural parameters like biomass or LAI is generally indirect, occurring when these structural attributes influence the physiological processes that govern temperature (e.g., denser canopies with higher LAI might have different ET rates). For direct structural assessment, thermal data is less suitable than LiDAR or even SAR and optical data, but it provides unique and crucial insights into forest functioning and health, especially concerning water dynamics and thermal stress.
E. Multi-Sensor Data Fusion for Enhanced Accuracy
Combining data from different sensor types often leads to more accurate and robust estimations of forest attributes by leveraging the complementary strengths of each sensor.
1. LiDAR and Optical/Hyperspectral Data
This is a common and powerful fusion approach, particularly for detailed forest inventory and species mapping.
●	Applications: Tree species identification, AGB and volume estimation, detailed forest structure analysis, and individual tree crown delineation.10
●	Benefits & Correlations: LiDAR provides precise 3D structural information (e.g., tree height, crown shape, DTM), while optical (multispectral or hyperspectral) data offers rich spectral information related to vegetation biochemistry, health, and species-specific reflectance patterns.
○	For tree species identification, fusion significantly improves classification accuracy compared to using either data source alone. For example, combining UAV-based hyperspectral imagery and LiDAR data achieved an overall accuracy of 89.20%, higher than hyperspectral alone (86.08%) or LiDAR alone (76.42%) in complex mixed forests.57 Similar improvements (e.g., 75.7% OA with fusion vs. 60-65% alone) are reported in other studies.58 LiDAR data aids in segmenting individual tree crowns more accurately and can help reduce shadowing effects in optical imagery, particularly in urban environments or complex canopies.115 The structural information from LiDAR (e.g., height, crown porosity) adds unique features that enhance inter-species separability.115
○	For AGB and volume estimation, LiDAR-derived height and structural metrics are often strong predictors. Fusing these with spectral variables from optical data (e.g., vegetation indices sensitive to canopy density or health) can refine these estimates. One study found that adding ETM+ (optical) metrics to LiDAR data moderately improved large tree canopy height estimates (R² from 0.76 to 0.83) and slightly improved biomass estimates (R² from 0.77 to 0.80).87
●	Key Snippets:.10
2. Optical and SAR Data
This combination is valuable for large-area mapping, especially in regions with frequent cloud cover, leveraging SAR's all-weather capability and optical data's spectral richness.
●	Applications: AGB estimation, canopy cover mapping, forest change and disturbance monitoring.66
●	Benefits & Correlations: SAR data provides information on forest structure, biomass (especially at longer wavelengths like L- and P-band), and moisture content, and can penetrate clouds. Optical data is sensitive to vegetation greenness, biochemistry, and canopy density.
○	For AGB estimation, combining optical and SAR data generally yields better results than using either sensor alone, particularly by mitigating issues of signal saturation. A study using a Combined Optical and Microwave Vegetation Index (COVI) reported an R² of 0.82 and RMSE of 15.95 Mg/ha for AGB, outperforming models based on individual sensor data.88 Another study found that combining Sentinel-1 (SAR) and Sentinel-2 (Optical) data performed best for forest AGB estimation with R² ranging from 0.79 to 0.84 when validated with ground plots.96
○	For canopy cover mapping, integrating Sentinel-1 SAR with GEDI LiDAR and HLS optical data produced robust maps with R² of 0.69-0.70.92
○	For forest change detection, the combination of Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 time series is powerful for continuous monitoring.66
●	Key Snippets:.38
3. LiDAR, SAR, and Optical Data
The fusion of all three major sensor types aims to provide the most comprehensive characterization of forests.
●	Applications: Advanced forest inventory, high-accuracy AGB estimation, robust forest change and disturbance mapping.66
●	Benefits & Correlations: This approach leverages the direct 3D structural measurements from LiDAR, the all-weather structural and moisture sensitivity of SAR, and the detailed spectral information from optical sensors.
○	One study found that combining LiDAR, ETM+, SAR/InSAR, and Quickbird was the most accurate for estimating large tree canopy height (R² = 0.84, RMSE = 7.3m) and biomass (R² = 0.83, RMSE = 66.6 Mg/ha), although only marginally better than LiDAR + ETM+.87
○	A recent study demonstrated that integrating canopy height information from GEDI and ICESat-2 (LiDAR) with SAR (Sentinel-1) and optical (Sentinel-2) features significantly improved forest change mapping accuracy, increasing precision by 15% and the F1-score by 13%.66 The LiDAR-derived height provided a more direct measure of change in forest volume compared to radiometric or backscatter features alone.
●	Key Snippets:.66
The consistent finding across numerous studies is that data fusion is a dominant strategy for enhancing the accuracy and robustness of forest attribute estimation. Each remote sensing modality captures different aspects of the forest: LiDAR excels at direct 3D structural measurements, optical sensors (especially hyperspectral) provide rich biochemical and fine-scale spectral information, and SAR offers all-weather structural and moisture sensitivity. By combining these complementary data sources, the limitations of any single sensor can be mitigated. For example, LiDAR's precise height data can improve the structural context for interpreting optical spectral signatures in species classification.57 Similarly, SAR's ability to penetrate clouds ensures data continuity for change detection, which can be augmented by the spectral detail from optical sensors during clear conditions.66 The integration of LiDAR-derived canopy height with SAR and optical data significantly boosts the accuracy of forest change detection by providing a direct geometric measure of change, rather than relying solely on indirect radiometric or backscatter variations.66 This synergistic effect implies that future advancements in operational forest monitoring will increasingly depend on the development and application of sophisticated data fusion techniques and multi-sensor workflows. The primary challenge shifts from merely acquiring data from multiple sensors to effectively integrating these diverse data streams to extract maximum synergistic value, often necessitating advanced analytical methods such as machine learning and deep learning.
Table 2: Correlation Strength of Remotely Sensed Data with Key Forest Attributes

Forest Attribute	Optical-Multispectral	Optical-Hyperspectral	LiDAR-ALS	LiDAR-TLS/HMLS/UAV	SAR L/P-Band	SAR C/X-Band	Thermal	
Tree Height	Low-Medium (indirect)	Low-Medium (indirect)	High 29	High (TLS for shorter, UAV, ALS/HMLS integrated) 30	Medium (InSAR/PolInSAR) 32	Medium (InSAR/PolInSAR, e.g., TanDEM-X) 42	Low (indirect)	
DBH	Not Suitable	Not Suitable	Low-Medium (indirect, high density) 74	High (TLS, HMLS) 31	Not Suitable	Not Suitable	Not Suitable	
Crown Diameter	Medium (VHR)	Medium (VHR)	High 15	High (TLS, UAV) 30	Low	Low	Low	
Crown Volume/Structure	Low-Medium	Medium	High (profiles, density) 80	Very High (TLS QSMs, UAV) 75	Medium (PolSAR for structure)	Low-Medium (PolSAR for upper canopy)	Low	
Stand Volume	Medium (VIs, texture) 88	Medium-High (VIs, detailed spectra)	High 81	High (plot-level with TLS/UAV) 86	High (especially L/P) 38	Medium (saturation issues) 97	Low (indirect)	
Aboveground Biomass (AGB)	Medium (VIs, saturation issues) 88	Medium-High (VIs, less saturation than MS)	High (no major saturation) 10	Very High (TLS QSMs, UAV) 17	High (L/P, less saturation) 38	Medium (C-band texture, X-band limited) 38	Low (indirect)	
Leaf Area Index (LAI)	High (VIs, RTMs - Sentinel, Landsat) 51	High (VIs, RTMs, specific absorption features)	Medium-High (gap fraction, LPI) 18	Medium-High (TLS for VFP) 18	Low-Medium (indirect)	Low (indirect)	Medium (indirectly via water stress) 19	
Canopy Cover	High (VIs, classification) 11	High (VIs, classification)	High (point density, gap fraction) 92	High (point density, gap fraction)	Medium (backscatter relation) 92	Medium (backscatter relation)	Low (indirect)	
Tree Species	Medium-High (time-series, VHR) 56	High (detailed spectral signatures) 57	Medium (intensity, structure - often fused) 10	Medium (intensity, structure - often fused)	Low-Medium (PolSAR, backscatter patterns - broad types) 37	Low (broad types)	Not Suitable	
Forest Health/Stress	Medium (VIs, change detection) 65	High (subtle biochemical changes) 62	Low (structural changes are late indicators)	Low (structural changes are late indicators)	Low-Medium (moisture changes)	Low (canopy surface changes)	High (LST for water/thermal stress) 46	
Soil Moisture (under canopy)	Not Suitable	Not Suitable	Not Suitable	Not Suitable	Medium-High (L-band) 100	Low (limited penetration)	Low-Medium (indirectly, surface temperature) 105	
5.	V. Factors Influencing the Correlation and Accuracy of Remote Sensing Estimates
The strength of correlation and the accuracy of forest attribute estimates derived from remote sensing data are not solely dependent on the chosen sensor type. A multitude of factors related to sensor characteristics, the inherent properties of the forest being sensed, data processing methodologies, and the quality of field data used for calibration and validation can significantly influence the outcomes.
A. Sensor Characteristics
The design and operational parameters of remote sensing instruments play a pivotal role.
●	Spatial Resolution: This refers to the size of the ground area represented by a single pixel in an image. Finer spatial resolution (smaller pixel size) allows for the detection and delineation of smaller features, such as individual tree crowns, and better captures the spatial heterogeneity within a forest stand.119 For instance, Landsat data (typically 30m resolution) can represent structural and compositional variability better than coarser resolution MODIS imagery (250m–1000m) for applications like AGB estimation.95 Very high-resolution (VHR) optical imagery can enable the separation of individual trees, which is crucial for detailed species mapping or crown dimension assessment.56 However, very high resolution can also introduce more within-crown spectral variability (e.g., sunlit vs. shaded portions), which can sometimes complicate classifications if not handled appropriately.119
●	Spectral Resolution: This pertains to the number and width of spectral bands a sensor records. Multispectral sensors capture data in a few broad bands, while hyperspectral sensors record data in hundreds of narrow, contiguous bands.25 The detailed spectral signatures provided by hyperspectral data are invaluable for identifying specific tree species, detecting subtle biochemical changes indicative of stress (e.g., changes in chlorophyll, nitrogen, or water content), and mapping foliar chemistry.26 Specific narrow bands, such as those in the red-edge region (around 700-750 nm), are known to be particularly sensitive to vegetation health and chlorophyll content, and sensors like Sentinel-2 include such bands, enhancing their utility for vegetation monitoring.56
●	Radiometric Resolution: This defines the sensor's sensitivity to differences in the intensity of electromagnetic radiation.45 Higher radiometric resolution allows the sensor to detect finer variations in reflectance or emittance, which can be crucial for distinguishing between spectrally similar targets or detecting subtle changes in vegetation condition.
●	Temporal Resolution: This refers to the revisit frequency of a sensor over a specific location. High temporal resolution is critical for monitoring dynamic forest processes, such as phenological changes (leaf development, senescence), rapid disturbance events (fires, harvesting, insect outbreaks), and seasonal variations in vegetation health or moisture content.56 For example, the 5-day revisit cycle of the Sentinel-2 constellation is highly beneficial for capturing phenological patterns used in tree species classification and for timely disturbance mapping.56 However, a trade-off often exists: sensors with very high spatial resolution may have lower temporal resolution, and vice-versa (e.g., Landsat's 16-day revisit vs. MODIS's daily coverage).95
●	LiDAR Point Density and Footprint Size: For LiDAR data, the density of laser points (points per square meter) and the footprint size of the laser pulse significantly impact the level of detail that can be extracted.10 Higher point densities allow for more accurate DTM generation under dense canopies, better delineation of individual tree crowns, and more detailed characterization of canopy structure.31 Large footprint LiDAR (e.g., LVIS, GEDI) samples larger areas with each pulse and records a waveform, providing information on the vertical distribution of canopy elements, while small footprint, discrete return LiDAR provides dense individual point returns.4
●	SAR Wavelength, Polarization, and Incidence Angle: As discussed previously, SAR wavelength dictates penetration depth and interaction with forest components.35 Polarization affects sensitivity to different scattering mechanisms (e.g., volume scattering from canopy vs. surface scattering from ground).35 Incidence angle influences the path length of the radar wave through the canopy and the extent of geometric distortions like layover and shadow in steep terrain.35
B. Forest Type and Structure
The characteristics of the forest itself heavily influence how remote sensing signals interact with it and, consequently, the accuracy of derived estimates.
●	Species Composition: Different tree species possess distinct crown architectures, leaf morphologies, and biochemical compositions, leading to unique spectral signatures (optical/hyperspectral) and structural characteristics (LiDAR, SAR).1 For example, coniferous species with their conical crowns and needle-like leaves interact differently with remote sensing signals compared to broadleaf species with their more rounded crowns and flat leaves. This variability affects the accuracy of species classification and the generalizability of models for estimating parameters like biomass or LAI across different forest types.83
●	Forest Density and Canopy Closure: In dense forests with high canopy closure, optical signals may saturate, meaning that beyond a certain vegetation density, changes in biomass or LAI are no longer reflected in changes in spectral reflectance.14 This is a well-known limitation for AGB estimation using optical data. Similarly, SAR signals, especially at shorter wavelengths, can also saturate in high-biomass forests.38 Canopy closure also affects the ability of LiDAR pulses to penetrate to the ground, which is crucial for accurate DTM generation and tree height measurement.78 In sparse canopies, the contribution of understory vegetation and soil background to the overall remotely sensed signal becomes more significant, potentially confounding the estimation of overstory attributes.88
●	Stand Age and Structural Complexity: Forest structure changes with stand age and management history, leading to variations in vertical stratification, horizontal heterogeneity, and overall complexity.55 Young, even-aged stands may have simpler structures that are easier to model with remote sensing data compared to old-growth forests with multiple canopy layers, diverse tree sizes, and significant amounts of deadwood. The internal structural complexity of a forest, including variations in canopy layering and gap distribution, has been shown to be strongly correlated with tree species diversity and forest productivity.120 Accurately capturing this complexity often requires high-resolution 3D data, such as that from LiDAR.
●	Understory Vegetation: The presence of a dense understory can affect DTM accuracy from LiDAR by obscuring ground returns, and can contribute to the overall signal in optical and SAR data, potentially leading to overestimation of overstory parameters if not properly accounted for.
C. Data Processing Techniques
The methods used to process raw remote sensing data into usable information products are critical for accuracy.
●	Calibration: Radiometric calibration converts raw digital numbers from the sensor into physically meaningful units like radiance or reflectance.13 This is a fundamental step for quantitative analysis and for comparing images acquired at different times or by different sensors.
●	Atmospheric Correction: For optical and thermal data, atmospheric correction aims to remove or reduce the effects of atmospheric scattering and absorption caused by gases and aerosols.13 Accurate atmospheric correction is essential for retrieving true surface reflectance or temperature, which is vital for deriving reliable vegetation indices, classifying land cover, and detecting changes over time. Studies have shown that applying appropriate atmospheric corrections can significantly improve land cover classification accuracies.123
●	Topographic Correction: In mountainous or hilly terrain, topography causes variations in illumination conditions due to slope and aspect relative to the sun's position (for optical data) or the sensor's look angle (for SAR data).35 Topographic correction methods attempt to normalize these illumination effects to provide a more consistent representation of surface properties. This is particularly important for accurate vegetation mapping and change detection in rugged landscapes, as uncorrected topographic effects can be misinterpreted as actual changes in vegetation or land cover.123
●	Geometric Correction and Orthorectification: These processes ensure that the image pixels are accurately geolocated and that distortions due to sensor geometry, platform motion, and terrain relief are removed.13 Accurate georeferencing is crucial for integrating remote sensing data with field plot locations and for multi-temporal change analysis.
●	LiDAR Data Processing (Ground Filtering, Normalization): Processing LiDAR point clouds involves classifying points into ground and non-ground returns (ground filtering) to create a DTM. The DTM is then used to normalize the heights of vegetation points to derive true heights above ground, leading to the CHM.10 The accuracy of these steps directly impacts all subsequent structural estimations.
●	SAR Data Processing (Speckle Filtering, Radiometric Terrain Correction): SAR images are inherently affected by speckle noise, which appears as a grainy texture. Speckle filtering is applied to reduce this noise and improve image interpretability.40 Radiometric terrain correction is also important for SAR data in areas with significant topography to account for variations in backscatter caused by local slope and incidence angle.
●	Choice of Algorithms and Models: The specific algorithms used for feature extraction (e.g., vegetation indices, texture measures), image segmentation (for object-based analysis), classification (e.g., Random Forest, SVM, Deep Learning), and regression modeling (for estimating continuous variables like biomass) significantly influence the final accuracy.1 Machine learning and deep learning models, for example, can capture complex non-linear relationships but require substantial and representative training data and careful parameter tuning to avoid overfitting.14
D. Field Data Quality and Plot Design
The quality, quantity, and characteristics of field data used for calibrating and validating remote sensing models are paramount.
●	Measurement Accuracy: Errors in field measurements of parameters like DBH, tree height, or plot location will directly translate into inaccuracies in the remote sensing models developed using this data.129
●	Plot Size and Design: The size and design of field plots should be appropriate for the spatial resolution of the remote sensing data being used and the scale of forest variability.8 For example, if field plots are smaller than the remote sensing pixel size, issues of mixed pixels and representativeness arise. Conversely, very large pixels may average out important local variations captured by smaller field plots.
●	Plot Geolocation Accuracy: Precise co-registration of field plot locations with remote sensing imagery is critical. Errors in GPS coordinates of plot centers can lead to mismatches between ground data and the corresponding pixel values, introducing significant noise into the model calibration and validation process, especially in heterogeneous forests.8
●	Representativeness of Calibration/Validation Data: The field plots used for model development and validation should adequately represent the range of forest conditions (species, age, density, site quality) present in the broader area to which the remote sensing model will be applied. Models trained on a limited or biased set of field data may not generalize well to other areas.8
●	Temporal Mismatch: A significant time lag between field data collection and remote sensing data acquisition can lead to discrepancies due to forest growth, disturbances, or seasonal changes.8 Ideally, field and remote sensing data should be acquired as concurrently as possible.
E. Topographic Effects
In mountainous and hilly regions, topography significantly influences remote sensing signals and the accuracy of derived forest parameters.
●	Illumination Effects: Slope and aspect affect the amount of solar illumination received by a surface, which directly impacts the reflectance values recorded by optical sensors.123 This can lead to similar vegetation types appearing different spectrally depending on their orientation relative to the sun.
●	SAR Geometric Distortions: SAR imagery is prone to geometric distortions in steep terrain, including layover (where the top of a slope is imaged before its base), foreshortening (slopes facing the sensor appear compressed), and shadow (areas obscured from the radar beam by taller features).35 These distortions complicate image interpretation and quantitative analysis.
●	Impact on Vegetation Distribution and Growth: Topography influences microclimate, soil development, and hydrological processes, which in turn affect vegetation distribution, species composition, and growth rates.121 These indirect effects of topography on forest structure can confound the relationship between remote sensing data and forest attributes if not accounted for.
●	Accuracy of Height Estimation: For LiDAR and InSAR-based height estimation, accurate DTMs are essential. Topographic complexity can make DTM generation more challenging and can also affect the accuracy of canopy height measurements, for example, by distorting GEDI waveforms in steep areas.121 Studies have shown that the divergence and uncertainty of forest canopy height models tend to be greater in high-mountain regions with steep slopes.121
Understanding and mitigating these influencing factors through careful sensor selection, appropriate data processing techniques, robust field sampling designs, and advanced modeling approaches are crucial for maximizing the accuracy and reliability of forest inventories based on remote sensing data.
VI. Summary of Key Correlations and Best Practices for Data Selection
The preceding sections have detailed how various remotely sensed data types correlate with specific field-measured tree and stand conditions. This section synthesizes these findings, offering a comparative overview and guiding principles for selecting appropriate remote sensing technologies based on the forest attributes of interest.
Optical data, particularly multispectral time series from sensors like Sentinel-2 and Landsat, show strong correlations with parameters related to canopy greenness and density, such as LAI and canopy cover, primarily through the use of Spectral Vegetation Indices (SVIs).11 The phenological information captured by these time series also significantly enhances tree species identification.56 Hyperspectral imagery excels in detecting subtle biochemical and physiological changes, making it highly valuable for assessing forest health, stress (e.g., due to insects, disease, or water deficit), and foliar nutrient content.26
LiDAR technology stands out for its direct measurement of 3D forest structure. ALS is highly accurate for tree height, canopy structure, and generating DTMs, which are foundational for deriving AGB and volume at the stand to landscape scale.29 TLS provides unparalleled detail for individual tree DBH, stem form, and lower crown architecture at the plot level, crucial for precise biomass models and calibration efforts.72 UAV and HMLS LiDAR systems are increasingly bridging the gap between the broad coverage of ALS and the fine detail of TLS.17 Due to its direct structural measurement, LiDAR generally shows the strongest correlations with tree height, crown dimensions, stand volume, and AGB, often with less susceptibility to signal saturation in dense forests compared to optical or SAR sensors.16
SAR data, with its all-weather capabilities, offers unique advantages. Longer wavelengths (L- and P-bands) demonstrate strong correlations with forest AGB and volume due to their canopy penetration and interaction with woody components.38 Shorter C- and X-bands are more sensitive to upper canopy elements and can be useful for canopy density or disturbance monitoring, though they saturate at lower biomass levels.35 InSAR and PolInSAR techniques allow for the estimation of forest height 32, and L-band SAR is effective for estimating soil moisture under forest canopies.100
Thermal remote sensing, by measuring LST, is primarily correlated with forest physiological status, particularly evapotranspiration rates and water stress.46 It is also a key indicator for forest fire risk assessment through its link to fuel moisture content.48
A consistent finding is the enhanced accuracy achieved through multi-sensor data fusion.10 Combining LiDAR's structural detail with optical/hyperspectral's spectral richness improves species identification and biomass estimation. Fusing SAR's all-weather structural sensitivity with optical data enhances large-area biomass and change detection. The integration of all three sensor types offers the most comprehensive approach, particularly for complex tasks like detailed change analysis where LiDAR provides direct height change, SAR ensures temporal continuity, and optical data offers spectral context.
Best Practices for Data Selection:
1.	Define the Target Attribute(s): The primary forest parameter(s) of interest will heavily guide sensor selection (e.g., LiDAR for height/AGB, hyperspectral for stress/biochemistry, L/P-band SAR for biomass in cloudy regions, thermal for water stress).
2.	Consider Forest Type and Structure: Dense, complex forests may require sensors with better penetration (LiDAR, longer wavelength SAR) and may cause saturation issues for optical and shorter wavelength SAR. Species composition and structural variability will influence model generalizability.
3.	Assess Environmental Conditions: Frequent cloud cover favors SAR or necessitates careful optical data compositing. Rugged topography requires robust topographic correction for all sensor types and may introduce geometric distortions in SAR.
4.	Evaluate Scale and Coverage Requirements: Large-area, wall-to-wall mapping may favor satellite-based optical or SAR, or sampled spaceborne LiDAR. Plot-level detail may require TLS, HMLS, or UAV-LiDAR/hyperspectral.
5.	Factor in Data Processing Capabilities and Costs: Hyperspectral and LiDAR data often require more specialized processing expertise and software. Data acquisition costs vary significantly between platforms (satellite, airborne, UAV, terrestrial).
6.	Prioritize Data Fusion: Whenever feasible, a multi-sensor approach should be considered to leverage complementary information and overcome individual sensor limitations, leading to more accurate and robust results.
7.	Ensure High-Quality Field Data: Regardless of the remote sensing data chosen, high-quality, accurately geolocated field data representative of the study area are indispensable for model calibration and validation.
VII. Recommendations and Future Outlook
The field of remote sensing for forest assessment is continually advancing, driven by new sensor technologies, improved data processing algorithms, and a growing understanding of the complex interactions between electromagnetic radiation and forest canopies.
Future efforts should focus on:
●	Enhanced Data Fusion Algorithms: Developing more sophisticated methods to integrate diverse data types (e.g., deep learning frameworks that can natively handle point clouds, rasters, and time series) will be crucial for extracting maximum synergistic value.
●	Improved Handling of Complex Forest Structures: Further research is needed to improve the accuracy of remote sensing estimates in highly complex, multi-layered, and species-diverse forests, as well as in fragmented landscapes. This includes better characterization of understory vegetation and deadwood.
●	Operationalization and Scalability: Bridging the gap between research findings and operational forest inventory and monitoring programs requires developing cost-effective, scalable, and user-friendly workflows. The increasing availability of analysis-ready data (ARD) and cloud computing platforms (e.g., Google Earth Engine) is facilitating this trend.12
●	Direct Retrieval of Biophysical Parameters: Moving beyond empirical correlations towards more physically-based models (e.g., inversion of radiative transfer models for optical/thermal, scattering models for SAR) can improve the generalizability and interpretability of results.
●	Time-Series Analysis for Dynamics: Leveraging the increasing temporal resolution of satellite constellations (e.g., Sentinel, Planet) for near real-time monitoring of forest dynamics, including growth, disturbance, and recovery, will become increasingly important.
●	Uncertainty Quantification: Rigorous quantification and propagation of uncertainties associated with remote sensing estimates are essential for their reliable use in decision-making and scientific modeling.14
The continued development and integration of advanced remote sensing technologies hold immense promise for transforming our ability to monitor and manage forest ecosystems sustainably.
6.	Relating Classification Accuracy to Correlation Coefficients
Converting a classification accuracy percentage directly into a standard correlation coefficient (like Pearson's r) is not straightforward because they measure different things. Accuracy assesses the correctness of predictions against true labels, while correlation typically measures the linear or monotonic relationship between two continuous or ordinal variables. However, in the context of binary classification, we can establish a relationship between accuracy and the Phi Coefficient (φ), which is a measure of association for two binary variables. The Phi Coefficient is equivalent to Pearson's correlation coefficient when calculated for two dichotomous variables.
Pearson's correlation coefficient 
When Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) is calculated for two truly dichotomous variables (variables that can only take on two values, often coded as 0 and 1), it is mathematically equivalent to the phi coefficient (φ).
Here's what that means:
Phi Coefficient (φ): This is a measure of association between two binary variables. It is a special case of Pearson's correlation.
Calculation: 
The phi coefficient (φ) is a statistical measure of association between two binary categorical variables, calculated from a 2x2 contingency table. It's essentially a measure of correlation for categorical data. The formula is φ = (ad - bc) / √( (a + b)(c + d)(a + c)(b + d) ), where a, b, c, and d represent the frequencies in each cell of the 2x2 table. 
Here's a step-by-step guide to calculating the phi coefficient:
1. Construct a 2x2 contingency table:
Organize your data into a table with two rows and two columns, representing the two binary variables. 
2. Populate the table:
Count the number of observations that fall into each cell of the table. For example, 'a' would represent the number of observations where both variables are true (or 1), 'b' represents the number where variable 1 is true and variable 2 is false (or 0), and so on. 
3. Apply the formula:
Use the formula φ = (ad - bc) / √( (a + b)(c + d)(a + c)(b + d) ) to calculate the phi coefficient. 

4. Interpret the result:
The phi coefficient ranges from -1 to +1. A value of 0 indicates no association, while values closer to -1 or +1 indicate a stronger association. A positive phi coefficient suggests a positive association, while a negative phi coefficient suggests a negative association.
Interpretation:
•	The value of phi (and thus Pearson's r in this case) ranges from -1 to +1.
•	+1: Indicates a perfect positive association (e.g., everyone who is "yes" on variable A is also "yes" on variable B, and everyone who is "no" on A is "no" on B).
•	-1: Indicates a perfect negative association (e.g., everyone who is "yes" on variable A is "no" on variable B, and vice versa).
•	0: Indicates no association between the two variables.
•	Values between 0 and +1 or 0 and -1 indicate varying degrees of positive or negative association, respectively.
Relationship to Chi-Square: The phi coefficient is also related to the chi-square statistic (χ²) calculated from a 2x2 contingency table of the two dichotomous variables: φ = √(χ²/n), where n is the total sample size.
Important Considerations:
•	Range Restriction: While Pearson's r (and phi) can reach -1 or +1 for dichotomous variables, this is only possible if the marginal distributions of the two variables are identical (i.e., the proportion of 0s and 1s is the same for both variables). If the marginals are different, the maximum possible absolute value of phi will be less than 1. This is a key limitation to be aware of when interpreting the strength of the correlation.
•	Assumptions of Pearson's r: Technically, Pearson's r assumes continuous, normally distributed variables. While it is calculated for dichotomous data (as phi), the interpretation needs to be cautious because these assumptions are violated.
Typical values of a confusion matrix for Landsat forest cover classification, which can vary significantly based on several factors:
* **Region and Forest Type:** A dense, homogenous tropical rainforest will classify differently than a sparse, mixed boreal forest or a fragmented temperate forest.
* **Sensor and Data Quality:** Landsat 8/9 will have different characteristics than older Landsat missions. Cloud cover, atmospheric conditions, and seasonality of the imagery also play a big role.
* **Classification Algorithm:** Different algorithms (e.g., Random Forest, Support Vector Machines, Maximum Likelihood) will produce different error patterns.
* **Definition of "Forest":** The threshold for what constitutes "forest" (e.g., >10% tree canopy cover, >30%) directly impacts the ground truth and thus the matrix.
* **Effort in Training and Validation:** The quality and quantity of training and validation data are crucial.
	Predicted: Forest	Predicted: Non-Forest	Row Total (Ground Truth)	
Actual: Forest	850	150	1000             	
Actual: Non-Forest	50	1300	1350             	
	900          	1450           	2350	

The values I used (TP=850, FN=150, FP=50, TN=1300) were chosen to illustrate a reasonably good classification, achieving an **Overall Accuracy of 91.5%** and a **Kappa of 0.82**. These are generally considered good results for land cover classification.
1.  **True Positives (TP - Actual Forest, Predicted Forest):** You want this to be as high as possible. In well-defined, extensive forests, this number (relative to the total actual forest) will be high. The 850/1000 (85% Producer's Accuracy for Forest) is a decent value.
2.  **True Negatives (TN - Actual Non-Forest, Predicted Non-Forest):** Similarly, you want this high. The 1300/1350 (96.3% Producer's Accuracy for Non-Forest) is quite good, suggesting non-forest areas are well identified.
3.  **False Negatives (FN - Actual Forest, Predicted Non-Forest - Omission Error):** These are forests on the ground that the model missed.
    * *Typical reasons:* Sparse forests, young regenerating forests, forests under stress, or areas spectrally confused with other dense vegetation (e.g., mature shrublands if the spectral signatures are similar). The 150 FN cases in the example mean 15% of actual forest was missed. This could be higher in challenging environments.
4.  **False Positives (FP - Actual Non-Forest, Predicted Forest - Commission Error):** These are non-forest areas incorrectly labeled as forest by the model.
    * *Typical reasons:* Dense agriculture, certain types of wetlands, or urban green spaces might be spectrally similar enough to be confused with forest, especially if the "forest" definition is broad or the sensor resolution makes it hard to distinguish. The 50 FP cases are relatively low in the example (User's Accuracy for Forest is 94.4%).

**What to expect for accuracies:**

* **Overall Accuracy:** Often, researchers aim for >80% or >85%. Anything above 90% is generally considered very good.
* **Producer's/User's Accuracies:** These should ideally also be high for each class. It's common for one class to perform better than another. For instance, a "dense forest" class might have higher accuracy than a "mixed open woodland" class.
* **Kappa Coefficient:**
    * 0.0 – 0.20: Slight agreement
    * 0.21 – 0.40: Fair agreement
    * 0.41 – 0.60: Moderate agreement
    * 0.61 – 0.80: Substantial agreement
    * 0.81 – 1.00: Almost perfect agreement
    The example's 0.82 is in the "almost perfect" range.

In summary, the values in the example matrix represent a good, but not perfect, classification. Real-world values will fluctuate. You'd often see higher error rates (more FNs and FPs) in more complex landscapes or with less refined classification approaches. The key is that the matrix allows you to understand the *nature* and *magnitude* of those errors.

7.	VIII. Conclusion
Remotely sensed data exhibit varying degrees of correlation with field-measured tree and stand conditions, contingent upon the sensor type, the specific forest attribute being assessed, forest characteristics, and data processing methodologies. LiDAR data generally show the strongest and most direct correlations with 3D structural parameters such as tree height, crown dimensions, stand volume, and aboveground biomass, often serving as a benchmark for structural assessments. Optical data, particularly multispectral time series and hyperspectral imagery, are highly correlated with canopy cover, LAI, tree species composition (especially when phenology or detailed spectral signatures are utilized), and indicators of forest health and biochemical status. SAR data, with its all-weather capabilities, provides valuable correlations with forest biomass (especially L- and P-bands), canopy structure (via InSAR/PolInSAR), and soil moisture. Thermal data correlates well with physiological parameters like evapotranspiration, water stress, and fire risk indicators.
No single remote sensing technology is universally optimal for all forestry applications. The most robust and accurate assessments are increasingly achieved through the synergistic fusion of data from multiple sensor types, leveraging their complementary strengths. Factors such as sensor resolution (spatial, spectral, temporal, radiometric), forest structural complexity, species composition, atmospheric and topographic conditions, and the quality of field calibration/validation data significantly influence the accuracy of these correlations. As remote sensing technologies and analytical methods continue to evolve, their integration with field measurements will play an increasingly critical role in providing the comprehensive, accurate, and timely information needed for sustainable forest management and understanding forest ecosystem dynamics in a changing world.
Works cited
1.	A Review: Tree Species Classification Based on Remote Sensing Data and Classic Deep Learning-Based Methods - MDPI, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/15/5/852
2.	What is Remote Sensing, and How Is It Used in Forestry? - American Forest Management, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.americanforestmanagement.com/news/what-is-remote-sensing-and-how-is-it-used-in-forestry
3.	Tree & Stand Measurement | Extension, accessed May 29, 2025, https://extension.unh.edu/resource/tree-stand-measurement
4.	Forest Aboveground Biomass Estimation by the Integration of GEDI ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.kjrs.org/journal/view.html?uid=1105&vmd=Full
5.	satpalda.com, accessed May 29, 2025, https://satpalda.com/remote-sensing-in-forestry/
6.	Remote sensing in forestry: current challenges, considerations and directions - Oxford Academic, accessed May 29, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/97/1/11/7159227
7.	CHAPTER 5 - SAR Methods for Mapping and Monitoring Forest Biomass, accessed May 29, 2025, https://gis1.servirglobal.net/TrainingMaterials/SAR/ch5.pdf
8.	www.fs.usda.gov, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2016/nrs_2016_barrett_001.pdf
9.	utia.tennessee.edu, accessed May 29, 2025, https://utia.tennessee.edu/publications/wp-content/uploads/sites/269/2023/10/W1117.pdf
10.	Advancements in Forest Monitoring: Applications and Perspectives of Airborne Laser Scanning and Complementarity with Satellite Optical Data - MDPI, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/3/567
11.	Validation of Satellite-Derived Green Canopy Cover in Rubber 2 ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202503.1518/v2
12.	ICESat-2 for Canopy Cover Estimation at Large-Scale on a Cloud-Based Platform, accessed May 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10098553/
13.	Remote Sensing Correction → Term, accessed May 29, 2025, https://climate.sustainability-directory.com/term/remote-sensing-correction/
14.	Progress and Limitations in Forest Carbon Stock Estimation Using ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/16/3/449
15.	(PDF) Measuring individual tree crown diameter with lidar and ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225076652_Measuring_individual_tree_crown_diameter_with_lidar_and_assessing_its_influence_on_estimating_forest_volume_and_biomass
16.	LIDAR-Based Forest Biomass Remote Sensing: A Review of Metrics ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/14/10/2095
17.	Mapping forest structure across the landscape - Sylvera, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.sylvera.com/blog/mapping-forest-structure-across-the-landscape
18.	Estimation of LAI with the LiDAR Technology: A Review - MDPI, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/20/3457
19.	www.eaps.purdue.edu, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.eaps.purdue.edu/research/ebdl/pdfs/2010-pub-5.pdf
20.	MODIS Leaf Area Index Products: From Validation to Algorithm Improvement - Boston University, accessed May 29, 2025, https://sites.bu.edu/cliveg/files/2013/09/ywze02.pdf
21.	Estimating Leaf Area Index in Row Crops Using Wheel-Based and Airborne Discrete Return Light Detection and Ranging Data - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed May 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8667472/
22.	Estimation of Forest Canopy Cover: a Comparison of Field Measurement Techniques, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230776607_Estimation_of_Forest_Canopy_Cover_a_Comparison_of_Field_Measurement_Techniques
23.	academic.oup.com, accessed May 29, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/jof/article-abstract/98/6/44/4614333#:~:text=Using%20the%20laser%20light%20equivalent,%2C%20and%20above%2Dground%20biomass.
24.	crisp.nus.edu.sg, accessed May 29, 2025, https://crisp.nus.edu.sg/~research/tutorial/optical.htm#:~:text=Principles%20of%20Remote%20Sensing%20%2D%20Centre,from%20targets%20on%20the%20ground.
25.	Optical Remote Sensing - Principles of Remote Sensing - Centre for ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://crisp.nus.edu.sg/~research/tutorial/optical.htm
26.	Hyperspectral imagery for forests - Natural Resources Canada, accessed May 29, 2025, https://natural-resources.canada.ca/forest-forestry/sustainable-forest-management/hyperspectral-imagery-forests
27.	Hyperspectral Remote Sensing for Forestry Monograph - asprs, accessed May 29, 2025, https://my.asprs.org/ASPRSMember/ASPRSMember/Store/StoreLayouts/Item_Detail.aspx?iProductCode=4584&Category=PUB
28.	LiDAR For Forestry Surveying - LiDAR Sensors & Scanners | LiDAR ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.lidarsolutions.com.au/lidar-solutions/lidar-survey-inspection-services/lidar-forest-survey-forestry-inventory-mapping-modelling/
29.	Digital Aerial Photogrammetry (DAP) and Airborne Laser Scanning ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/11/1808
30.	Terrestrial Laser Scanning as an Effective Tool to Retrieve Tree ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/7/2/1877
31.	Comparison of LiDAR Operation Methods for Forest Inventory in ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202503.1204/v1
32.	Large-scale forest stand height mapping in the ... - ESSDD, accessed May 29, 2025, https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2024-596/
33.	www.iceye.com, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.iceye.com/blog/beginners-guide-to-synthetic-aperture-radar-sar-technology#:~:text=SAR%20works%20by%20sending%20discrete,because%20it%20uses%20coherent%20illumination.
34.	Beginner's guide to synthetic aperture radar (SAR) technology - Iceye, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.iceye.com/blog/beginners-guide-to-synthetic-aperture-radar-sar-technology
35.	earthdata.nasa.gov, accessed May 29, 2025, https://earthdata.nasa.gov/s3fs-public/2025-04/SARHB_CH3_Content.pdf
36.	ARSET - Forest Mapping and Monitoring with SAR Data | NASA ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://appliedsciences.nasa.gov/get-involved/training/english/arset-forest-mapping-and-monitoring-sar-data
37.	L-Band Synthetic Aperture Radar and Its Application for Forest Parameter Estimation, 1972 to 2024: A Review - PubMed Central, accessed May 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11397620/
38.	Forest above-ground biomass estimation using X, C, L, and P band ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2024.2310730
39.	(PDF) Forest above-ground biomass estimation using X, C, L, and P ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378040219_Forest_above-ground_biomass_estimation_using_X_C_L_and_P_band_SAR_polarimetric_observations_and_different_inversion_models
40.	PolSAR-Decomposition-Based Extended Water Cloud Modeling for ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/19/2287
41.	The SAR Handbook | NASA Earthdata, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/earth-observation-data-basics/sar-handbook
42.	elib.dlr.de, accessed May 29, 2025, https://elib.dlr.de/209182/1/FINAL%20VERSION.pdf
43.	www.bioline.org.br, accessed May 29, 2025, http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?st15166
44.	The Importance of Thermal Infrared Remote Sensing - Changguang Satellite Technology, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.jl1global.com/the-importance-of-thermal-infrared-remote-sensing.html
45.	Remote Sensing and Application in civil engineering - satpalda, accessed May 29, 2025, https://satpalda.co/remote-sensing-and-application-in-civil-engineering/
46.	Temperature Check: Using Thermal Imaging To Assess Forest ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://ecostress.jpl.nasa.gov/news/temperature-check-using-thermal-imaging-to-assess-forest-health
47.	Remote Sensing Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Water Stress ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2504-446X/9/4/241
48.	citeseerx.ist.psu.edu, accessed May 29, 2025, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=5d7c76a2a1ee4ca7f5984be7a66866def092df59
49.	Lidar Remote Sensing for Ecosystem Studies | BioScience | Oxford ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/1/19/291259
50.	Satellite canopy water content from Sentinel-2, Landsat-8 and MODIS: Principle, algorithm and assessment - ResearchGate, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391847665_Satellite_canopy_water_content_from_Sentinel-2_Landsat-8_and_MODIS_Principle_algorithm_and_assessment
51.	(PDF) Temporal dynamics of leaf area index and land surface ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384433610_Temporal_dynamics_of_leaf_area_index_and_land_surface_temperature_correlation_using_Sentinel-2_and_Landsat_OLI_data
52.	Assessment of Leaf Area Index Models Using Harmonized Landsat ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/19/3121
53.	HiQ-LAI: a high-quality reprocessed MODIS leaf area index dataset with better spatiotemporal consistency from 2000 to 2022 - ESSD Copernicus, accessed May 29, 2025, https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/16/1601/2024/essd-16-1601-2024-discussion.html
54.	HiQ-LAI: a high-quality reprocessed MODIS leaf area index ... - ESSD, accessed May 29, 2025, https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/16/1601/2024/
55.	Evaluating the effect of stand properties and site conditions on the forest reflectance from Sentinel-2 time series, accessed May 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7959393/
56.	Forest Stand Species Mapping Using the Sentinel-2 Time Series, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/10/1197
57.	Identification of tree species based on the fusion of UAV ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9539217/
58.	Tree species classification in a typical natural secondary forest using ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15481603.2023.2171706
59.	Distinguishing Abrupt and Gradual Forest Disturbances ... - Frontiers, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.863116/full
60.	Improved forest-cover mapping based on MODIS time series and ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2017.1280635
61.	MODIS enhanced vegetation index predicts tree species richness across forested ecoregions in the contiguous U.S.A., accessed May 29, 2025, https://people.forestry.oregonstate.edu/richard-waring/sites/richard-waring/files/publications/Waring_etal_RS%26E_2006.pdf
62.	Current State of Hyperspectral Remote Sensing for Early Plant ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/22/3/757
63.	A systematic review of multi-mode analytics for enhanced plant ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12076076/
64.	Detailed validation of large-scale Sentinel-2-based forest disturbance maps across Germany | Forestry - Oxford Academic, accessed May 29, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/98/3/437/7710650
65.	(PDF) Forest Disturbance Monitoring Using Cloud-Based Sentinel-2 ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377159598_Forest_Disturbance_Monitoring_Using_Cloud-Based_Sentinel-2_Satellite_Imagery_and_Machine_Learning
66.	(PDF) Forest Change Mapping using Multi-Source Satellite SAR ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385064322_Forest_Change_Mapping_using_Multi-Source_Satellite_SAR_Optical_and_LiDAR_Remote_Sensing_Data
67.	(PDF) Detailed validation of large-scale Sentinel-2-based forest ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382183228_Detailed_validation_of_large-scale_Sentinel-2-based_forest_disturbance_maps_across_Germany
68.	Hyperspectral remote sensing of foliar nitrogen content | PNAS, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210196109
69.	A Comprehensive Review of Crop Chlorophyll Mapping Using ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12031281/
70.	What is DSM (Digital Surface Model) & How Does it Work? - Fly Eye, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.flyeye.io/drone-acronym-dsm/
71.	Generating viewsheds based on the Digital Surface Model (DSM ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11687771/
72.	Estimation of Diameter at Breast Height in Tropical Forests Based on ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/6/2275
73.	Evaluation of Two-Dimensional DBH Estimation Algorithms Using TLS, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/15/11/1964
74.	Estimating single-tree attributes by airborne laser scanning: methods based on computational geometry of the 3-D point data - ResearchGate, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259397569_Estimating_single-tree_attributes_by_airborne_laser_scanning_methods_based_on_computational_geometry_of_the_3-D_point_data
75.	Terrestrial laser scanning as a tool for assessing tree growth. iForest ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://iforest.sisef.org/contents/?id=ifor2138-009
76.	Estimation of above-ground biomass of large tropical trees with ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://cgspace.cgiar.org/items/bb95a1d8-47e0-45cf-89a0-b6b0ffadb6f8
77.	Weighing trees with lasers: advances, challenges and opportunities ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5829188/
78.	(PDF) Is field-measured tree height as reliable as believed – A ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329151919_Is_field-measured_tree_height_as_reliable_as_believed_-_A_comparison_study_of_tree_height_estimates_from_field_measurement_airborne_laser_scanning_and_terrestrial_laser_scanning_in_a_boreal_forest
79.	Evaluation of airborne laser scanning data for tree parameters and ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://acta.mendelu.cz/artkey/acu-201305-0013_evaluation-of-airborne-laser-scanning-data-for-tree-parameters-and-terrain-modelling-in-forest-environment.php
80.	Estimation of tree crown volume from airborne lidar data using computational geometry | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259397749_Estimation_of_tree_crown_volume_from_airborne_lidar_data_using_computational_geometry
81.	use of airborne laser scanning to estimate sawlog volumes | Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research | Oxford Academic, accessed May 29, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/81/4/499/526904
82.	Nonparametric estimation of stem volume using airborne laser ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/x05-246
83.	Using LiDAR Data to Estimate Biomass in Afforested Bottomland Oak Sites in the Southern United States - Oxford Academic, accessed May 29, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/forestscience/article-pdf/69/5/551/51832866/fxad028.pdf
84.	Full article: Forest aboveground biomass estimation using deep ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2025.2492412?src=
85.	www.mpi.govt.nz, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/65658-Biomass-Modelling-for-Carbon-Estimates-Report
86.	Terrestrial Laser Scanning for Estimating the Volume and Biomass ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/16/2/334
87.	cce.nasa.gov, accessed May 29, 2025, https://cce.nasa.gov/veg3dbiomass/hydeetal_2006.pdf
88.	Estimating Forest Aboveground Biomass by Combining Optical and ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4934260/
89.	Quantifying changes in forest structural complexity using bi-temporal ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22797254.2024.2417905
90.	(PDF) Terrestrial laser scanning in forest ecology: Expanding the ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344386386_Terrestrial_laser_scanning_in_forest_ecology_Expanding_the_horizon
91.	(PDF) A Review on the Use of LiDAR Remote Sensing for Forest ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366871031_A_Review_on_the_Use_of_LiDAR_Remote_Sensing_for_Forest_Landscape_Restoration
92.	Statewide Forest Canopy Cover Mapping of Florida Using ... - MDPI, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/17/2/320
93.	applications – Lidar for Forestry - Jens Wiesehahn, accessed May 29, 2025, https://wiesehahn.github.io/lidar-forestry/content/applications.html
94.	www.jouav.com, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.jouav.com/blog/lidar-vs-photogrammetry.html#:~:text=LiDAR's%20ability%20to%20penetrate%20vegetation,features%20hidden%20beneath%20the%20canopy.
95.	LIDAR vs. photogrammetry : what sensor to choose for a given ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://wingtra.com/lidar-drone/lidar-vs-photogrammetry-what-sensor-to-choose/
96.	Lu Wang's research works | Southwest Forestry University and other places - ResearchGate, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Lu-Wang-2264479482
97.	(PDF) Forest Biomass Estimation Using Texture Measurements of ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260623257_Forest_Biomass_Estimation_Using_Texture_Measurements_of_High-Resolution_Dual-Polarization_C-Band_SAR_Data
98.	Full article: Soil moisture estimation with microwave remote sensing ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2025.2468413
99.	Forest Change Mapping using Multi-Source Satellite SAR, Optical, and LiDAR Remote Sensing Data, accessed May 29, 2025, https://isprs-annals.copernicus.org/articles/X-4-2024/163/2024/isprs-annals-X-4-2024-163-2024.pdf
100.	(PDF) Surface Soil Moisture Retrievals Under Forest Canopy For L ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348059319_Surface_Soil_Moisture_Retrievals_Under_Forest_Canopy_For_L-band_SAR_Observations_Across_A_Wide_Range_of_Incidence_Angles_By_Inverting_A_Physical_Scattering_Model
101.	(PDF) Soil moisture estimation with microwave remote sensing: a ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389266512_Soil_moisture_estimation_with_microwave_remote_sensing_a_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis
102.	Nuo Xu's research works | University of California, Davis and other places - ResearchGate, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Nuo-Xu-2227464153
103.	Remote Sensing | Special Issue : SAR for Forest Mapping - MDPI, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing/special_issues/sar_forest
104.	Research and Applications — ECOSTRESS, accessed May 29, 2025, https://ecostress.jpl.nasa.gov/science
105.	Thermal‐water stress index from satellite images | Request PDF, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232996280_Thermal-water_stress_index_from_satellite_images
106.	Advancements in Remote Sensing for Evapotranspiration Estimation ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/16/11/1927
107.	ECOSTRESS: NASA's Next Generation Mission to Measure ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/1615399
108.	Landsat Next: - The Future of Earth Observation - NASA's Western Water Applications Office (WWAO), accessed May 29, 2025, https://wwao.jpl.nasa.gov/documents/122/WWAO-Annual-Meeting-Presentation-2024-WWAO-Annual-Meeting-Landsat-USGS-Stryker-Tim-S.pdf
109.	A systematic review on the application of UAV-based thermal remote ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2024.2368933
110.	Using MODIS Land Surface Temperature to Evaluate Forest Fire ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3449515_Using_MODIS_Land_Surface_Temperature_to_Evaluate_Forest_Fire_Risk_of_Northeast_China
111.	www.ajol.info, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.ajol.info/index.php/sajg/article/view/183930/173287
112.	A review of evapotranspiration estimation methods for climate-smart ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://iwaponline.com/jwcc/article/16/2/249/106353/A-review-of-evapotranspiration-estimation-methods
113.	The use of airborne laser scanning to develop a pixel-based ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3212894/
114.	www.tucson.ars.ag.gov, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/unit/publications/PDFfiles/2718.pdf
115.	A Review: Individual Tree Species Classification Using Integrated ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/10/1/1
116.	www.zora.uzh.ch, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/238702/7/ZORA_1_s2_0_S0924271622003045_main.pdf
117.	The role of remote sensing in process‐scaling studies of managed forest ecosystems, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_journals/2015/rmrs_2015_masek_j001.pdf
118.	www.fs.usda.gov, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2018/nrs_2018_deo_001.pdf
119.	High Spatial Resolution Remotely Sensed Data for Ecosystem ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/54/6/511/294008
120.	The coordinated impact of forest internal structural complexity and ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11489486/
121.	Remote-sensing-based forest canopy height mapping: some ... - GMD, accessed May 29, 2025, https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/18/337/2025/
122.	Unraveling Forest Complexity: Resource Use Efficiency, Disturbance, and the Structure‐Function Relationship - the NOAA Institutional Repository, accessed May 29, 2025, https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/54168/noaa_54168_DS1.pdf
123.	earthmapps.io, accessed May 29, 2025, https://earthmapps.io/pubs/2013_Vanonckelen_JAG_The%20effect%20of%20atmospheric%20and%20topographic%20correction%20methods%20on%20land%20cover%20classification%20accuracy.pdf
124.	Use of atmospheric correction in vegetation indices!? - ResearchGate, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/post/Use_of_atmospheric_correction_in_vegetation_indices
125.	Topographic effects amplify forest disturbances detected by yearly ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15481603.2023.2222627
126.	Full article: Evaluation and improvement of the vertical accuracy of ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10106049.2025.2453024
127.	Deep learning for forest inventory and planning: a critical review on the remote sensing approaches so far and prospects for further applications | Forestry - Oxford Academic, accessed May 29, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/95/4/451/6518266
128.	Machine Learning Algorithms of Remote Sensing Data Processing for Mapping Changes in Land Cover Types over Central Apennines, Italy - MDPI, accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2313-433X/11/5/153
129.	Long-term strategic forest planning based on biased remote sensing ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://forestsmonitor.com/index.php/fm/strategic-forest-planning-remote-sensing
130.	Using remotely sensed data to construct and assess forest attribute ..., accessed May 29, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02827581.2010.497496