79

2 79-99 100 06
Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
Volume16, No.2, June 2011, pp.79-99

1*

2002 2009
2009 2 13
SAVI 17% 168 ha
SAVI SAVI 70

60 SAVI IPCC
75%
ha 16.93 1.16
m3/ha ha 7.55 0.52 ton/ha 1,276.40 87.28 ton

40

1.

(2009)

(Kyoto

( 3.4 )2010

Protocol) 3.3

(UNFCCC) 16 COP

16

1990 (reforestation)

REDD (Reducing

(afforestation)(deforestation)

Emissions

Degradation includes the role of conservation,

6%

sustainable management and enhancement of forest

(Free-Smith

carbon stocks)

et al., 20072005)

, : 02-23039978 ext. 1202 , E-mail: mickey@tfri.gov.tw

2

from

Deforestation

and

Forest

: 100 08 11
: 100 10 05
: 101 01 04

80

(UN-REDD, 2011)

100 06

SAVI

IPCC(2003)(biomass)

IPCC

(carbon pool)

(Wallin et al., 1996)

2.

(Kangas and
Maltamo, 20062003)

(
199819981992)
2008
2003)
(Mohren et al., 1999)

(Myneni et al., 2001 Dong et al., 2003)

(Popescu and
Zhao, 2008)

(Kangas and Maltamo, 2006,

2009)
9

(carbon sequestration)

(FORMOSAT-2 FS2)

2.1

2002 2007
2002 2005

2008 1:2500

2009 2
13 FS2 ( 1)
1
994.14 ha

167.85 ha ( 16.9%)

2.2
2.2.1
2.2.1.1

FS2

(Fraxinus griffithii)

(metadata)1

FS2

(soil adjusted vegetation index

(dark object method)

SAVI)

SAVI

(path radiance)(

81

1992)5m

(2.2)

(Cos I
I = )(Lee and
Nakane, 1996)

Level 4
(local scale)
FS2

spline function
(geo-referencing)
RMS 1m FS2
FS2

1 2009213

2.2.1.2
1

FS2 2m
2m x 3m

2009/02/13

2010
8

GMT+8

0952

(deg)
solar azimuth angle

135.08

FS2 8m x 8m (pixel)

(deg) solar elevation

39.78

MS Pixel size (m)

8.00

PAN Pixel size (m)

2.00

SAVI NDVI
(Normalized difference vegetation index)
NDVI

(deg)

10.26

(leaf area indexLAI)(Franklin, 2001)

(deg)

10.44

SAVI NDVI

B 2.906231

SAVI (1) (Huete,

1998)

DN

2.808159

R 3.917550
NIR3.265691

(Level)

SAVI

(1 L )( nir red )
nir red L

nir FS2
red FS2

(1)

82

100 06

(1) L

L NDVI

L 0 SAVI

NDVI L
0.25 L

2.2.3

0.5 L 1

Trimble Geo XH m

GPS(global positing system)

L 0.5

2.2.1.3 SAVI

FS2 SAVI ISODATA

(cluster) 7
ISODATA K-Means
(Jensen, 2005) SAVI
5 SAVI
SAVI
(spatial heterogeneity)
SAVI

2.2.2
SAVI 5
FS2
SAVI

(McCoy,
2005)
GPS
4

1.3m
(diameter of breast height, DBH)
(H)
GPS

TWD97
SAVI SAVI
70 3 70
2009 12 2010 11
1

(21m)

SAVI
SAVI

(Purposive, Judgmental sampling)(McCoy, 2005)

SAVI
2 ha 1 20 m x 20 m
FS2

70 TWD97
GPS

83

3 SAVI 70
1996) ha

2.2.4

(m3/ha)

8m

(Mean_SAVI/0.0064 ha)(OLSE)

(1986)

(2)(1968)

( 5 )

(3)(1997)
(4) 3 70
(2) ha
(3)(4)
(2)
(m3)
ha (m3/ha)

8m SAVI

Y a bXi
Y (ha)

(5)

Xi (0.0064 ha) SAVI

70
(data exploration
analysis)(boxplot)

V 0.0000772 DBH 1.8780277H 0.9124601

(2)

(outliers)

V 0.0000464 DBH

(3)

K-S(Kolmogorov-Smirnov test)

(4)

1.53673

1.50567

V DBH 2 0.79 H 0.45

3

V (m )

(histogram)

DBH(m)

(skew type)

H(m)

n > 30

2.2.5
(Franklin,

K-S (2007)

2001,

Stellingwerf and Hussin, 1997, Lee and Nakane,

(OSullivan

84

and Unwin, 2010, 2007)

SAVI
Morans I (Chang, 2010)
( 6 )
Anslin

E(I i )

100 06

wi
Ii
n 1

Var(Ii)Ii
Z z ( I i )

I i E[ I i ]
Var [ I i ]

Local Morans I (Wong and Lee, 2005,

2010)( 7 )

()

(2003)

w ( x
ij

i 1 j 1

R2

x)( x j x)
n

S 2 wij

(6)

70

i 1 j 1

IMorans I

(ANCOVA)

xi i

(2007)

xj i

S2x x x

wij dij

method)

1
n 1
E(I)Morans I n
E(I )

0 I>E(I)

I E ( I ) VAR(I) I
VAR( I )

Schreuder

and

Williams,

1995,

Biometrics Information Pamphlet, 2007)

2003 IPCC Good Practice

(7)

xi x

Ii LISA (local indicators of spatial Association

or local Morans I)
zi zj x
zi xi Z
wij

1986,

2.2.6

zi

Wood,

I i zi wij z j

(design-based method) (Schreuder and

I<E(I)

(model-based

Guidance for Land use, Land-use Changed Foresty

(LULUCF-GPG)( 8 )

D BEF
1+R

FS2 SAVI
(IPCC, 2003)
CO2 C 44/12

Ct = (VtDBEF)(1+R)CF

(8)

Ctt(ton/ha)
Vtt(m3/ha)
D(ton/m3)
BEFVt

R
CF

(8)

(1)
D
(1983)0.743
0.671

85

R 0.24 0.27(
3)IPCC(2003)
0.24~0.42
0.2~0.45 (2010)

0.23 R
(4)
0.4821
0.4691 CF
(2002)(2005)

0.4683(2010)

0.487 CF

3.
3.1

70

(2002)

22

69 SAVI

K-S

0.05 SAVI

2003)(2002)

0.73

( 9 ) TSAVI K-S

(2)

0.18

BEF

1.3~3.4

IPCC(2003)

( 10 ) TV

1.3

69 TSAVI

1.4 3.4

SAVI TV

IPCC

(2010)

1.02 BEF

(3)
Cairns et al.(1997)

TSAVI = Log10 ( K SAVI )

TSAVISAVI
SAVISAVI

(9)

86

100 06

K = max + 1 = 2.2218

69

max SAVI

TV = SQRT (V)

(10)

Morans IAnslin Local

Morans I Z Score 2.0

TV ha
V ha

3.2

1932373839465
46

(random distribution)

69SAVI

9 60

(row)

Morans I (6)

Anslin

Local Morans I (7)

60

Z Score2.0 (SAVI

60 SAVI

60 4

575449464

4 60

87

2 (b) (ANOVA)

3.3
60

SAVI
(F-test

53.125

53.125

17.565

58

.303

70.690

59

175.421

.000

p=0.01)( 11 )
5 2
R2 0.752 SAVI
R 0.867 3
t-test

TSAVI TV

Durbin-Waston ( 2) 1.67 2.0

4.0

TSAVI

-17.812

1.345

5.852

.149

P-P 45
60

R2 0.588 R2 0.700

Beta
-.867

-13.245

.000

39.269

.000

(11)
6.00

(11) SAVI

5.00

TV = 5.852 17.812 TSAVI

R2 = 0.752 **

(11)
4.00

n = 60
TV

TSAVI : SAVI

3.00

TV :
( 9 10 )

2.00

2 (a)
1.00

.867a

R2

.752

.747

.5503

Durbin-Watson

1.670

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

TSAVI

5 60

3.4
(11)
SAVI
TV
ha SAVI

0.2

88

100 06

0.0064 ha

(SE)95 %

ha18.13

(Sy.x)

2.18 m3/haha8.09

95%(1992)

0.97 ton/ha (29.66 3.56 ton/ha

ha 16.93 1.16 m /ha

)167.85 ha

167.85 ha

3,043.12 365.91 m31,357.23

2,841.71 195.28 m3

163.20 ton( 4,976.5 598.40 ton

Vt

(8)
D = 0.73

60 ha

BEF = 1.02 R=0.23 CF = 0.487 4

60 ha

m 0.446 ton

t (paired samples t-test)

ha

17.83 1.91 m3/ha

ha 7.55 0.52 ton/ha (

18.13 2.18 m3/ha 0.05

27.68 1.91 ton/ha )

60

1,276.40 87.28 ton (

(1.1136) 60

4,680.13 320.03

17.83

(0.9736) ha V
(V=TV**2) 0.303 (0.55032)

3.5
60

89

( m 3

ha

(m3)
C ( ton

ha

C (ton)
CO2 ( ton )
ha

CO2 (ton)

Sy.x=0.5503
95%

SE=1.1136
95%

16.93

1.16

18.13

2.18

2,841.71

195.28

3,043.12

365.91

7.55

0.52

8.09

0.97

1,276.40

87.28

1,357.23

163.20

27.68

1.91

29.66

3.56

4,680.13

320.03

4,976.50

598.40

1. m3 0.446 ton C

2. 60
3. 0.303

4.
4.1

(McRoberts et
al., 2002)

4.2

168 ha

( 8 )

FS2

70

60 70

(Griffith et al., 1994) FS2 SAVI

SAVI

20m x 20m

SAVI

m GPS

GPS

SAVI SAVI

90

100 06

4.3

4 4

GPS

FS2

()

(2008)

()

(Howard, 1991)

(2007
2010)

8 12

91

(1)

FS2 SAVI

(3)(8)

2011

IPCC

69

(gradient)

IPCC 2003 GPG (IPCC, 2003)

4.4
R2 0.752
SAVI R 0.867
NDVI
(Hamlyn and Vaughan, 2010, Franklin, 2001,
Stellingwerf and Hussin, 1997, Lee and Nakane,
1996, Howard, 1991)
(2007) FS2
NDVI
R2 0.5692(1998)
SPOT NDVI
()
R2 0.67

FS2
SAVI

(20081998
19921998)

IPCC 1996
(IPCC,1997)IPCC 1996
(K)
IPCC 2003 BEF
IPCC 2003
Vt
(BEF+BEFR)
K=BEF+R BEF+BEFR BEF
1.0 2.5~3.0
IPCC 2003 IPCC 1996
IPCC 2003

(8)
0.446
m3 ()
0.446 ton

4.6

60SAVI
17.83 1.91 m3/ha
60ha

4.5

(2)

18.13 2.18 m3/ha

60 17.83
0.973660

92

100 06

18.126 1.1136

86.02 Mg/ha

86.41 Mg/ha(2009) 45

(Scheaffer et al., 2006)

153.3 Mg/ha(

60

2008) 5 8

ha

8.09 ton/ha

(Kangas and Maltamo, 2006)

(scale)(20m x 20m)
FS2(8m x 8m)

4.8

(spatial explicit model) (OSullivan

and Unwin, 2010)

60302
30
R20.7150.718F

0.01

4.7

ha18.13 m /ha

60 1015

(1995)

2025303235374042454750

75.5 m /ha61.0 m /ha

55 60

R2

( Sylr )

( Sy ) 7

(12)

(13)(2008)

( 5)

ha

13 23 ha

9 7

32.58~133.05 ton 76.8

ton/ha(2000)

ha 52.48 ton

34.91 ton19.27 ton14.50 ton/ha (

2004)34 ha

40

81.6 ton/ha (2008)

43.48 ton/ha(2008)

40 (

5~8

2009)

Sy 1 f

93

ha

(12)

1 f SE

Sylr 1 f
1 f

Sy. x
n

(13)

MSE
n

f n

FS2

40

Sy.x

MSE

SSres

n-2

SSres

N 167.85ha

0.04ha

FS2 SAVI

4196.25

5.
FS2 SAVI

SAVI 5

70

98 99

60

SAVI

75%(SAVI 0.85 )

70

ha
16.93 1.16 m3/ha ha
7.55 0.52 ton/ha
1,276.40 87.28 ton

94

100 06

(ton/ha)

()

76.80

13~23

(2000)

52.48

(2004)

34.91

(2004)

19.27

(2004)

14.50

(2004)

81.60

34

(2008)

43.48

(2008)

86.02

30

(2009)

86.41

25

(2009)

153.30

45

(2008)

8.09

5~8

7.55

5~8

: -
6 30-

TSAVI
* TSAVI

III

49.901

16.634

47.270

.000

388.433

388.433

1103.876

.000

.168

.168

.478

.492

49.686

49.686

141.201

.000

.102

.102

.291

.592

19.705

56

.352

1012.856

60

69.606

59

P=0.01 TV TSAVI

95

R2

( Sylr )

( Sy )

10

y = -16.435x + 5.738

0.699

0.185

0.317

15

y = -22.538x + 6.257

0.814

0.154

0.343

20

y = -18.789x + 5.933

0.768

0.137

0.277

25

y = -20.620x + 6.159

0.699

0.118

0.210

30

y = -19.186x + 5.974

0.718

0.113

0.209

32

y = -15.291x + 5.616

0.748

0.085

0.167

35

y = -18.231x + 5.884

0.773

0.104

0.214

37

y = -19.403x + 6.086

0.771

0.080

0.164

40

y = -18.164x + 5.888

0.762

0.085

0.173

42

y = -19.092x + 5.886

0.766

0.078

0.159

45

y = -15.482x + 5.627

0.708

0.079

0.144

47

y = -18.567x + 5.895

0.746

0.080

0.157

50

y = -16.435x + 5.738

0.741

0.082

0.159

55

y = -18.420x + 5.893

0.745

0.076

0.149

60

y = -17.805x + 5.851

0.751

0.071

0.140

0.40
0.35
0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05
0.00
10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

96

1983 1
339

100 06

2 261-276
2009

31 3 55-68

2009

2008

182

18

()2007
243
2007

()2007 SPSS
578

2 45-58
2005

266-278
2002
17
3 291-299

2008

2009

16 2 31-36

23 Supplement S11-22
2004

18 4
261-272
2000

15 1 115-123
2008

41 4 521-535
2005
31 3
12-19

()2008()
479
()2003
308
1998

13 2 155-167
1968

2010
20 4
45-63
2008

2003-

388

97

1992

770
1997

1995

2010
43

pp.41-64
2008 12 22

2003

18 3
171-82

1998SPOT
13
3 175-188
1992

1986

Biometrics Information Pamphlet, 2007, Comparing

design-based and model-based Inference: An
introduction, No.63, January 26, 2007.
Cairns, Michael A., Sandra Brown, Eileen H. Helmer,
and Greg A. Baumgardner, 1997, Root biomass
allocation in the worlds upland forests.
Oecologia, NO.111, pp. 1-11.
Chang, K. T., 2010, Introduction to geographic
information systems (international Fifth Ed.).
Published by McGraw-Hill Education (Asia),
Singpore, 448p.
Dong, J., R. K. Kaufmann, R. B. Myneni, C. J.
Tucker, P. E. Kauppi, J. Liski, et al., 2003,
Remote sensing estimates of boreal and
temperate forest woody biomass: Carbon pools,
sources and sinks. Remote Sensing of
Environment, No. 84, pp. 393-410.
Franklin, S. E., 2001, Remote sensing for sustainable
forest management. Published by CRC Press
LLC, New York, 407p.
Free-Smith P. H., Broadmeadow M. S .J. and J. M.
Lynch, 2007, Forestry and climate change.
Published by CAB International, MA, USA,
252p.
Griffith, D. A., Haining R. and G. Arbia, 1994,
Heterogeneity of attribute sampling error in
spatial data sets. Geographical Analysis, Vol.26,
No4, pp.300-320.
Hamlyn, G. J. and R. A. Vaughan, 2010, Remote
sensing of vegetation-Principles, techniques, and
applications. Published by OXFORD University
Press, NY, P.352.
Howard J. A., 1991, Remote sensing of forest
resources. Published by Chapman & Hall,
London, 405p.

97

IPCC, 1997, Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for

national
greenhouse
gas
inventories.
IPCC/OECD/IEA. Paris, France.
Jensen, J. R., 2005, Introductory Digital Image
Processing-A remote sensing perspective (3rd ed.).
Published by Pearson Prentice Hall, NJ,526p.
Kangas, A. and M. Maltamo (Eds.), 2006, Forest
Inventory- Methodology and applications,
Published by Springer, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, 362p.
Lee, N. J. and K. Nakane, 1996, Forest vegetation
classification and biomass estimation based on
Landsat TM data in a mountainous region of
west Japan. In: Gholz, H. L., Nakane, K. and H.
Shimoda, (eds). The use of remote sensing in the
modeling of forest productivity. Kluwer Acad.
Publ., Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 159-171.
McCoy, R. M., 2005, Field methods in remote
sensing. Published by The Guilgord Press, NY,
159p.
McRoberts, R. E., Wendt, D. G., Nelson, M. D. and
M. H. Hansen, 2002, Using a land cover
classification based on satellite imagery to
improve the precision of forest inventory area
estimates. Remote Sensing of Environment,
Vol.81, pp.36-44.
Mohren G. M. J., J.F. Garza Caligaris, O. Masera, M.
Kanninen, T. Karjalainen, A. Pussinen, G. J.
Nabuurs., 1999, CO2 Fix for Windows: a
dynamic model of the CO2-fixation in forests.
Dutch: NL Institute for Forestry and Nature
Research. pp.29.
Myneni, R. B., J. Dong, C. J. Tucker, R. K.
Kaufmann, P. E. kauppi, J. Liski, et al., 2001, A
large carbon sink in the woody biomass of north
forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, No.98(26), pp. 269-80.
OSullivan, D. and D. J. Unwin, 2010, Geographic
information analysis (2nd Ed.). Published by
John Wiley & Sons, NJ, 405 p.
Popescu, S. C., and K. Zhao, 2008, A voxel-based
lidar method for estimating crown base height
for deciduous and pine trees. Remote Sensing of
Environment, No.112, pp. 767781.
Scheaffer, R. L., William, M. III. and R. L. Ott, 2006,
Elementary survey sampling, 6th edition.
Published by Brooks/Cole, a Thomson Learning
Company, 486p.

Huete, A. R., 1988, A soil adjusted vegetation index

(SAVI). International Journal of remote Sensing,
NO.9, pp. 295309.

Schreuder, H. T., and G. B. Wood, 1986, The choice

between design-dependent and model-dependent
sampling. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research,Vol.16(2), pp.260-265.

IPCC, 2003, Good practice guidance for land use,

land-use change and forestry. IPCC/IGES.
Hayama. Japan.

Schreuder, H. T., and M. S. Williams, 1995,

Design-based estimation of forest volume wuthin
a model-based sample selection framework.

98

Canadian Journal of Forest Research,Vol.25,

pp.121-127.
Stellingwerf, D. A. and Y. A. Hussin, 1997,
Measurements and estimations of forest stand
parameters using remote sensing. Published by
Ridderprint,
Ridderkerk,
Utrecht,
The
Netherlands, 272p.
UN-REDD program, 2011, COP16 agreement on
REDD+: Official UNFCCC text, http://
http://www.un-redd.org/AboutREDD/tabid/582/
Default.aspx, Searched on 2011-07-02.
Wallin, D. O., Harmon, M. E., Cohen, W. B., Fiorella,
M. and W. K. Ferrell, 1996, Use of remote
sensing to model land use effects on carbon flux
in forest of the Pacific Northwest, USA.- In:
Gholz, H. L., Nakane, K. and H. Shimoda, (eds).
The use of remote sensing in the modeling of
forest productivity. Kluwer Acad. Publ.,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp.219-237.
Wong, D. W. S. and J. Lee, 2005, Statistical analysis
of geographic information-with ArcView GIS
and ArcGIS. Published by John Wiley & Sons,
NJ, 441p.

100 06

Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Volume 16, No.2, June 2011

99

Applying FORMOSAT-2 Image and Field Survey Data to

Estimate Carbon Sequestration in Fraxinus Farm
Afforestation
Han-Ching Hsieh 1*

Dar-Hsiung Wang 2

Tzu-Yi Wang 3

Chih-Ming Chiu

Jun-Yuan Chang 4

ABSTRACT
Due to afforested plantations have a considerable amount of biological carbon sequestration capacity, the
government has been aiming at large area of plantations on the agricultural lands to relieve the pressure of global
warming and face the coming of Post Kyoto Protocol. How to use satellite images combined with ground survey
data to accurately estimate the biomass of plantation carbon sequestration has become an international issue. In
this study, the afforested lands between 2002 and 2009 belonging to Taiwan Sugar Companys Dai-Lung and
Dai-Fun farms at Guangfu township, Hualien county were used as experimental area. The FORMOSAT- 2 (FS2)
satellite image of this area acquired on February 13, 2009 and plantations maps of these two farms were
collected as geographic information for biomass estimation. After a procedure of radiation normalization for the
FS2 image, we applied soil adjusted vegetation index (SAVI) of FS2 focused on plantations of Fraxinus griffithii
(Fg) that occupied 17%, a total area of 168 hectares distributed in the area, to classifying the SAVI of them to 5
separated grades. Considering the spatial heterogeneity of SAVI on graded patches of plantations, a stratified
purposive sampling method investigated a total of 70 ground plots (20 m x 20 m) , in which pertree field survey
was made, was conducted for the study. After filtering out 10 plots through data exploration procedure and
spatial correlation analysis, the optimal linear regression model for the estimates of volume per hectare was
established by linking mean SAVI and average timber volume per hectare of 60 plots. Referencing to IPCC
formula and optimal conversion factors from domestic researches, the amount of carbon sequestration of Fg at
each plantation patch and in the whole experimental area was calculated and evaluated. The results show that the
optimal regression model derived from the methods can explain the variation amounted to 75%, which is
comparable to some best results of oversea researches and enhanced much more reliability when compared with
the past studies conducted at mountain areas in Taiwan. The estimated average Fg stock volume is 16.93 1.16
m3ha-1, average amount of carbon sequestration is 7.55 0.52 ton ha-1 and the total is 1,276.40 87.28 ton on
the whole experimental area. In addition, the discussion of this study explores that the use of regression
estimation method is superior to direct estimation method from the sample plots and the optimal number of
ground plots is 40.

Keywords: FORMOSAT-2, Carbon Sequestration, Afforestation, Forest Survey

Specialist, Division of Forest Management, Taiwan Forestry Research Institute

Researcher, Division of Forest Management, Taiwan Forestry Research Institute
34
Research Assistant, Division of Forest Management, Taiwan Forestry
4
Research Institute
25

*.

Corresponding Author, Phone: 886-2-23039978 ext.1202 , E-mail: mickey@tfri.gov.tw

Received Date: Aug.. 11, 2011

Revised Date: Oct. 05 , 2011
Accepted Date: Jan. 04, 2012