See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279231172

Application of Lidar Terrain Surfaces for Soil Moisture Modeling

Article  in  Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing · December 2012

DOI: 10.14358/PERS.78.11.1241

CITATIONS READS

25 1,558

3 authors:

Meg Southee Paul Treitz

Wildlife Conservation Society, Canada Queen's University
9 PUBLICATIONS   65 CITATIONS    124 PUBLICATIONS   5,964 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Neal Scott
Queen's University
93 PUBLICATIONS   4,663 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Weed Ecology View project

Biophysical Remote Sensing and Terrestrial CO2 Exchange at Cape Bounty, Melville Island View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Meg Southee on 25 February 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING & REMOTE SENSING The official journal for imaging and geospatial information science and technology

December 2012
Volume 78, Number 12
PE&RS
 Application of Lidar Terrain Surfaces for Soil
Moisture Modeling
Florence Margaret Southee, Paul M. Treitz, and Neal A. Scott
Abstract
Soil moisture gradients and nutrient fertility are used to
classify forest types in Ontario, Canada based on ecological
land classification (ELC). An existing lidar dataset for the
Romeo Malette Forest near Timmins, Ontario was used to
derive three terrain indices (topographic wetness index (TWI),
percent elevation index (PEI), and canopy height model
(CHM)) at varying resolutions (2 m, 5 m, 10 m and 20 m) to
determine the resolution that best characterizes soil mois-
ture patterns in a boreal forest landscape. Depression
removal algorithms were examined to determine how they
affect the TWI, and thus, soil moisture estimation. This paper
stresses the importance of gathering data at a resolution that
is sufficient for mapping fine-scale basin features to accu-
rately model soil moisture in forested environments. The
results of this research indicate that 5 m resolution data
provided the best overall relationship with measured
seasonal soil moisture. More generally, the results indicate
that high spatial resolution variables (i.e., 2 m, 5 m) may be
more suited to modeling soil moisture trends at shallow
depths (0 to 15 cm), while coarser resolutions (i.e., 10 m,
20 m) may be more adept at resolving trends over greater
depths (0 to 40 cm).
Introduction
For ecological land classification and ecosystem modeling, it
is important to have the ability to characterize soil attributes
accurately in order to explore relationships between envi-
ronmental heterogeneity and ecological patterns at different
scales across a landscape (Moore et al., 1993b). Variation in
terrain morphology (and micro-topography) can lead to
different combinations of soil moisture and nutrients
available to plants across fine spatial scales (Moore et al.,
1993a), and is therefore influential in determining plant
species composition and/or ecosite type (Kimmins, 2004).
Soil moisture is important because it not only affects many
soil-landscape related processes, such as erosion potential
and nutrient availability, but it also plays a pivotal role in
forest dynamics, e.g., species composition, species produc-
tion potential, and growth rates (Wilson and Gallant, 2000;
Kimmins, 2004). In addition, soil moisture is an important
determinant of biomass allocation patterns (Zhou et al.,
2007), and it is critical to understanding hydrological
patterns throughout a catchment (Wilson et al., 2005). Since
gradients of soil moisture and nutrient regimes are used as
the basis for ecological land classification (ELC) in Ontario,
Canada at the ecosite level (Taylor et al., 2000), it is of
interest to determine how accurately (and precisely) soil
Department of Geography, Queen’s University, Kingston,
Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6(megsouthee@gmail.com).
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING & REMOTE SENSING
moisture can be estimated using terrain surfaces derived
from accurate and precise digital elevation models (DEMs).
Lidar (Light Detection And Ranging) is an active remote
sensing system that utilizes the speed of light and the travel
time of a laser pulse to determine the distance to features
intercepted by the laser pulse, recording the location of an
object or surface in three-dimensional (3D) space (Lim et al.,
2003). As a result, lidar can capture a surface with increased
vertical and horizontal precision when compared to other
remote sensing techniques, making it a practical technology for
terrain analysis (Raber et al., 2002; Hodgson and Bresnahan,
2004; Reutebuch et al., 2005; Habib et al., 2009). Lidar
technology provides the ability to capture micro-topographic
relief at resolutions that were indistinguishable using
previously available remote sensing technologies, particu-
larly under forest canopies. Local terrain features, in the
form of depressions and peaks, lead to the dispersion or
accumulation of organic material and therefore soil nutrients
and water. Depressions occur in a DEM when water can flow
into a given cell, but not flow out again because the cell has
a lower elevation than its surroundings. These depressions
can be true landscape features or artifacts generated from
processing digital data. Hence, utilizing techniques that
minimize the development of artificial depressions are vital
when processing digital landscapes for soil moisture model-
ing (Lindsay and Creed, 2005).
Soil moisture, like many soil attributes, is difficult to
predict at point locations because it varies both spatially
and temporally, and the variation is related to both depth
and scale (Florinsky et al., 2002). In a spatial context, soil
moisture is often modeled from a terrain-based perspective
using different topographic measures such as slope gradient,
slope aspect, slope curvature, specific catchment area, and
various topographic wetness indices derived from a DEM
(Gessler et al., 1995; Florinsky et al., 2002; Thompson et al.,
2006). These computed topographic variables are measures
of specific gravity-driven processes which are indicative of
the zones of accumulation, dissipation, and transit in a
landscape, yet it has been shown that the spatial distribu-
tion of soil moisture is not solely related to any single
terrain index that has currently been developed (Florinsky
et al., 2002; Wilson et al., 2005). Here, we examine three lidar-
derived terrain surfaces generated at various spatial resolu-
tions to determine the resolution which best characterizes
measured soil moisture patterns in a forested landscape in
the boreal forest of north-eastern Ontario. We also examine
the application of different depression removal algorithms to
determine how they affect predictions of soil moisture.
Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing
Vol. 78, No. 12, December 2012, pp. 1241–1251.
0099-1112/12/7812–1241/$3.00/0
© 2012 American Society for Photogrammetry
and Remote Sensing
D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2 1241
Materials and Methods
Study Area
The Romeo Malette Forest (RMF) is located south-west of
Timmins in the boreal forest of north-eastern Ontario (Figure 1).
The RMF occupies a total area of approximately 6,300 km2
within the Abitibi Plains ecoregion, a vast area of productive
forests consisting of dense conifer and mixed-wood stands
(Ontario Government, 2006). Dominant species include black
spruce (Picea mariana), jack pine (Pinus banksiana), white
spruce (Picea glauca), balsam fir (Abies balsamea), trembling
aspen (Populus tremuloides), balsam poplar (Populus balsam-
ifera), white birch (Betula papyrifera), and white cedar (Thuja
occidentalis). The granitic bedrock parent material of the
Precambrian Shield has led to the development of coarse-
textured soils with low base conditions and acidic sandy
loams with limited buffering capacity (Hills, 1959). The study
area is characterized by gently rolling plains of thinly covered
bedrock knobs, granitic bedrock outcrops, sandy outwash
plains, and silty depressions (Taylor et al., 2000). The Abitibi
Plains ecoregion has a humid mid-boreal ecoclimate with a
mean summer temperature of 14°C, a mean winter tempera-
ture of ⫺12°C, and mean annual precipitation ranging from
900 mm in the east to 725 mm in the west (Ecological
Stratification Working Group, 1995).
Data Collection
During the summer of 2007, a high precision lidar survey
(~3 returns m⫺2) was conducted during leaf-on conditions
Figure 1. Location of high-precision lidar flightlines and sample plots in the Romeo Malette Forest.
1242 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2
along seven flightlines covering 21 km2 of the RMF (Figure 1).
Lidar data were collected by an Optech Airborne Laser
Terrain Mapper (ALTM) 3100 sensor mounted in a Cessna
Grand Caravan aircraft at an altitude of 1,000 m and travel-
ling at 120 knots (Treitz et al., 2012). The ALTM 3100 system
parameters were set at a maximum pulse repetition rate of
100 kHZ, a scan frequency of 54 HZ and a 20° (half angle)
field of view (Treitz et al., 2012). This resulted in a cross-track
resolution of 0.50 m, an along-track resolution of 0.57 m, and
a swath width of approximately 475 m (Treitz et al., 2012).
The total range of elevation across the lidar flightlines is
approximately 50 m with the actual elevation values ranging
from 323 m to 373 m on the bare-earth model.
Forty-five circular sample plots (radius ⫽ 11.28 m;
area ⫽ 400 m2) were selected within the lidar flightlines
from 127 forestry plots established by the Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources (OMNR) (Figure 1). The plots were
selected to represent fifteen different cases based on: (a)
the OMNR plot classification, (b) species composition, and
(c) micro-topography. The plots represent the full range of
moisture regimes outlined in the Ontario Ecological Land
Classification; however, the distribution of plots is such that
the majority of the soils range from dry, sandy soils to
moist, coarse loamy soils with the occasional plot having
very high moisture and organic matter content (ELC Working
Group, 2009).
Soil moisture was measured during the summer of 2009
using a MoisturePoint MP-917 time domain reflectometry
(TDR) system (Environmental Sensors, Inc. (ESI), Sidney,
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING & REMOTE SENSING
BC, Canada). TDR technology is commonly used to measure
volumetric soil water content for hydrological and meteoro-
logical research (Heathman et al., 2003). TDR derives the
volumetric water content of the soil based on the propaga-
tion time of an electronic signal as it travels along a probe of
known length inserted into the soil (Heathman et al., 2003).
As the water content of the soil increases, so does the
duration of the time signal. As such, the volumetric water
content is calculated as a function of the duration of the
time signal, the length of the probe and the dielectric
constant of the soil. The volumetric water content
(uv, m3m⫺3) was calculated using the dielectric constant of
soil water (Ka) and the following equation from Topp et al.
(1980):
uv ⫽ ⫺5.3 * 10 ⫺2 ⫹ 2.92 * 10 ⫺2 Ka ⫺5.5 * 10 ⫺4 Ka2
⫹ 4.3 * 10 ⫺6 Ka3. (1)
The dielectric constant of the soil water (Ka) was calculated
based on the following equation (Noborio, 2001):
Ka ⫽ (299.704 Tmc / 2Lseg)0.5 (2)
where Tmc ⫽ measured time signal in the soil (nsec), and
Lseg ⫽ length of the probe (mm).
The MP-917 is a handheld system with a probe head
that attaches to two steel rods. This system was used with
15 cm and 40 cm steel rods to determine the soil moisture
in the mineral soil of the plots at two depths corresponding
to the nominal rooting zone of the trees. Soil moisture was
measured at three locations in each plot; however, only two
sets of 40 cm rods were placed in plots MW12 and MW14
due to the shallow soil depth. The 15 cm and 40 cm steel
rods were placed in the same relative locations in each plot
based on the following criteria: 1.5 m north of the plot
center, 1.5 m south-east of the plot center, and 1.5 m south-
west of the plot center. This facilitated efficient movement
between plots as it allowed the instrument to remain
stationary while the cable was moved between the various
sets of steel rods. Surface debris and organic soils were
removed to expose the mineral soil; however, in plots where
no mineral layer could be found within the top 30 cm of the
soil profile, the rods were inserted directly into the organic
material. The sampling rods remained in place between
measurements, ensuring that repeated measurements
occurred at the same location. In order to prevent the soil
from drying out unnaturally between measurements, the
overlying moss or litter layer was replaced over the exposed
mineral soil between measurements. Soil moisture was
recorded once at each plot during three distinct time
intervals (early-, mid- and late-season). The early-season
measurements were made over seven days (07 June to
13 June), the mid-season measurements over thirteen days
(01 July to 09 July, and 14 July to 17 July), and the late-
season measurements over five days (30 July to 03 August).
Lidar Data Processing
The lidar data, provided in raw LAS format, were used to
derive DEMs and Digital Surface Models (DSMs) at four
different horizontal resolutions (2 m, 5 m, 10 m, and 20 m).
The resolutions were selected to detect changes in local
terrain variation that correspond to a periodicity that is
twice as large as the grid resolution (Mummery et al., 1999),
so the representative scales of terrain variation that can be
detected by the selected grid resolutions are 4 m, 10 m,
20 m, and 40 m.
The lidar point cloud was classified into ground and
vegetation points using macro-scripts generated in TerraScan
9 (TerraSolid Ltd., Jyväskylä, Findland). The ground points
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING & REMOTE SENSING
were separated from the vegetation points using an iterative
triangular irregular network (TIN) ground classification
algorithm, which starts by generating a sparse TIN based on
local neighborhood minimal points within a user-defined
area and then iteratively adds points to the ground surface
(Axelsson, 1999). After classifying the lidar point data, two
geoprocessing models were developed using Esri Model
Builder ArcGIS® 9.3.1 (Esri Inc., Redlands, California) to
create the DEMs and DSMs. A linear stream network was used
to burn culverts into the DEM and ensure hydrological
continuity. The DEMs with culverts were used as the base
DEMs to create the derived terrain surface layers.
Depression Removal Algorithm for Hydrological Continuity
The high density and precision of the data used for DEM
generation produced significant numbers of small depres-
sions, which are not conducive to hydrological modeling.
Although some of these depressions are artifacts of the lidar
data processing, it is expected that a significant proportion
of these depressions are real. Hence, we examined the
effects of systematically removing depressions in the derived
surfaces for soil moisture analysis of this low relief environ-
ment. While there are a variety of techniques available to
eliminate depressions and ensure hydrological continuity in
a DEM, the “fill sinks” technique is still the most widely
available and easily accessible technique used for hydrologi-
cal enforcement in GIS analysis. This technique, however, is
limited in its application and output especially with data at
high spatial resolution because they can produce large
unnatural flat areas within the landscape when the DEM
must be raised to an artificial level for continuous flow
(Lindsay and Creed, 2005). Breaching is another technique
that is commonly used and it typically modifies fewer cells,
but it has the negative effect of creating numerous artificial
channels within the landscape (Lindsay and Creed, 2005).
The Impact Reduction Approach (IRA) algorithm, developed
by Lindsay and Creed (2005), provides a robust technique to
determine if cells classified as depressions should be
breached or filled based on the following equation:
a b
1 NMCfill MADfill
IF ⫽ ⫹ (3)
2 NMCbreach MADbreach
where IF ⫽ impact factor, NMC ⫽ number of modified cells,
and MAD ⫽ mean absolute elevation difference.
The IRA algorithm parameters are set to minimize both
the number of cells modified and the mean absolute eleva-
tion differences in the DEM while, at the same time, enforc-
ing drainage over flat areas. When the IF is greater than or
equal to one, the breach technique is applied; otherwise, the
fill technique is applied. The IRA algorithm was applied to
the DEMs at each resolution to evaluate the difference
between using raw DEMs and digitally altered DEMs to
generate a topographic wetness index (TWI) and predict soil
moisture.
Derived Terrain Surfaces
The three terrain surfaces derived from the DEM include the
TWI, the percent elevation index (PEI), and the canopy height
model (CHM) (Figure 2). One PEI and CHM surface was
calculated at each of the four spatial resolutions (2 m, 5 m,
10 m, and 20 m) using the DEM with culverts, while two TWI
surfaces were calculated at each of the four resolutions to
assess the effects of using the IRA depression removal
algorithm during hydrological analyses.
The PEI is a local elevation filter that is applied to a DEM
using a 0 to 100 percent scale. The scaled values represent
the elevation of the center pixel with respect to the neigh-
boring pixels, such that a 0 percent value represents a pit,
D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2 1243
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2. Lidar-derived surface layers for a sample flightline segment at 5 m

resolution: (a) DEM representing the ground surface, (b) PEI representing pits, peaks
and relative elevation values, (c) CHM representing the height of vegetation, and
(d) TWI representing surface saturation.

and a 100 percent value represents a peak in the DEM.
The PEI was applied to the DEMs using a round filter with
different neighborhood sizes (Table 1). An effort was made
to select filter sizes that were roughly equivalent to the size
of the plots; however, plot level precision was not directly
achievable at the larger resolutions due to the larger grid
resolution. The PEI was processed on the raw DEMs with
culverts in Whitebox version 1.0.7 (John Lindsay (2010);
University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario).
The CHM represents the actual vegetation height in
meters. To generate the CHM the raw DEM was subtracted
from the DSM to determine the maximum height of the forest
canopy at each cell within the lidar flightlines.
The TWI represents an index of wetness (i.e., surface
saturation) at each cell. The scale of values in the derived
TWI surfaces range from zero to ten, where zero indicates a
dry area and ten represents a saturated area. The TWI was
calculated based on the following formula derived by Beven
and Kirkby (1979):
TWI ⫽ ln 1a / tanb2
where a ⫽ the local upslope area draining through each cell,
and tanb ⫽ the local slope gradient.
The TWI was processed in Whitebox version 1.0.7
(John Lindsay (2010); University of Guelph, Guelph,
Ontario) on the raw and IRA-treated DEMs using a multiple
flow direction algorithm (i.e., FD8) (Freeman, 1991; Quinn
et al., 1991). The FD8 flow algorithm allows water to flow
into multiple neighboring cells based on the convex or
concave shape of the landscape. It assigns flow to all
downstream neighbors of a given cell based on the degree
of slope gradient. Wolock and McCabe (1995) observed
that the TWI patterns derived from the multiple flow
direction algorithms are smoother and more suited for
modeling the spatial distribution of soil moisture at
different resolutions, while single flow algorithms (i.e., D8)
produce TWI values with higher variance and skew. Thus,
the FD8 multiple flow algorithm was selected as it allows
for more realistic water flow in the upper areas of a
catchment where flow convergence and divergence have
more influence on overland flow due to shape of the
(4) landscape.

1244 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2 PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING & REMOTE SENSING

 TABLE 1. PERCENT ELEVATION INDEX (PEI) NEIGHBORHOOD FILTER SIZES
DEM Cell Size (m) DEM Cell Area (m2) Neighborhood Filter Size
2m 2 * 2 ⫽ 4 m2
5m 5 * 5 ⫽ 25 m2
10 m 10 * 10 ⫽ 100 m2
20 m 20 * 20 ⫽ 400 m2
The PEI, CHM, and TWI values were extracted into tabular
format at each DEM resolution based on the cells correspon-
ding to each plot. The average TWI and CHM value was
extracted per plot, while bilinear interpolation was used to
extract the PEI value for each plot based on the four closest
cells surrounding the centre of each plot. As such, the CHM
and TWI values are representative of the entire plot at each
scale (i.e., 400 m2), whereas the PEI values are scale dependant
and calculated based on an area which ranges from 16 m2 to
1,600 m2 around the plot center. Other terrain surfaces such as
slope gradient, slope aspect, slope curvature, surface flow
direction, and surface flow accumulation were extracted from
the DEM datasets; however, they were eliminated from further
analysis due to non-normal distributions and/or collinearity.
Statistical Analysis
All the soil moisture data and lidar-derived surface layers
were tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test for
normality (n ⬍ 2000) and the Brown-Forsythe test for
homogeneity of variances (i.e., homoscedasticity). The
Brown-Forsythe test is considered to be more robust than
the Levene test when the treatment groups are unequal in
size (Brown and Forsythe, 1974). Repeated measures analy-
sis of variance (RMANOVA) was used to assess the differences
between early-, mid- and late-season soil moisture at each
plot and the statistical significance level was adjusted using
the Bonferroni correction.
The three moisture measurements (i.e., N, SE, and SW)
were pooled for each plot and a square root transformation
was applied to the 0 to 15 cm and 0 to 40 cm soil moisture
measurements to normalize the data. A constant value of
one was added to the original data for the 0 to 15 cm
measurements prior to transformation, to ensure that
consistent scaling was applied during the square root
transformations. This process was not necessary for the 0 to
40 cm data since the raw values were already greater than
one. Square root transformations were also applied to the
5 m raw TWI, 20 m raw TWI, and 20 m IRA-altered TWI data
layers; while the 2 m raw TWI and IRA-altered TWI data
layers were normalized using the Winsorizing technique.
The Winsorizing technique normalizes the data by changing
the value of an extreme outlier to make it equivalent with
the next closest value within the inter-quartile range (Dixon,
1960; Wainer, 1976). The 2 m data had an outlier at plot
MW14, which is located very close to Opishing Lake, with
shallow soils and a high water table. Regression analysis
performed with and without the outlier plot (MW14)
indicated that both relationships were statistically significant
(p ⬍0.05); however, the regression relationships were
reduced when the outlier was removed. Thus, the Winsorizing
technique was used to treat the 2 m data and all plots were
included in subsequent analyses.
It should be noted that the late-season moisture meas-
urements and the 20 m CHM failed the test for normality, but
had Shapiro-Wilk test values close to one (Table 2). These
data were still used in the analysis with the acknowledge-
ment that they violate the assumption of normality, so the
regressions utilizing these variables should be interpreted
with caution. Normality was achieved for the PEI data at all
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING & REMOTE SENSING
Neighborhood Filter Area (m2)
11 * 11 22 * 22 ⫽ 484 m2
5 * 5 25 * 25 ⫽ 625 m2
3 * 3 30 * 30 ⫽ 900 m2
3 * 3 60 * 60 ⫽ 3,600 m2
resolutions; however, regardless of the use of transforma-
tions, the PEI data failed the Brown-Forsythe test for homo-
geneity of variances. The same pattern was evident for the
10 m and 20 m CHM data and the 2 m TWI data (Table 2).
Simple and multiple linear regressions were used to
determine the relationships between the lidar-derived
variables and the seasonal soil moisture data. Regression
analyses were conducted using the 2 m, 5 m, 10 m, and
20 m resolution data and the following lidar variables: TWI,
CHM, and PEI. The CHM and PEI values were regressed against
the seasonal moisture measurements at each spatial resolu-
tion, while the TWI values were regressed against the
moisture data at each resolution to determine the best
output based on: (a) the two different hydrological process-
ing techniques used (i.e., raw data versus IRA-altered data),
and (b) the seasonal measurement of soil moisture.
Results
Seasonal Trends in Soil Moisture
Soil moisture measurements at each plot in the 0 to 40 cm
layer varied significantly (p ⬍0.05) over the season
(RMANOVA) (F[1.741, 71.386] ⫽ 4.774, p ⫽ 0.015), but
seasonal differences in the 0 to 15 cm layer measurements
were not significant (F[1.560, 63.970] ⫽ 3.124, p ⫽ 0.063).
Huyhn-Feldt estimates (epsilon ⬎0.75) were used to correct
the degrees of freedom as Mauchly’s test indicated that the
assumption of sphericity was violated (chi-square ⫽ 8.532
and 15.462, p ⬍0.05) for both the 0 to 15 cm and 0 to 40 cm
moisture measurements throughout the field season. Post-
hoc tests conducted on the 0 to 40 cm seasonal moisture
measurements revealed that soil moisture was significantly
higher in the early season compared to late season
(p ⫽ 0.024). However, neither the early season (p ⫽ 0.602)
or late season (p ⫽ 0.098) differed significantly from the
mid-season conditions (Table 3).
TWI and Soil Moisture
The regression analyses comparing TWI and soil moisture
indicate that the 2 m, 5 m, and 10 m data explain the most
variation in soil moisture at both depths during the mid-
season sampling period; whereas, the 20 m resolution
explains more variability in the 0 to 15 cm measurements
during the early season and more variability in the 0 to
40 cm measurements during the late season (Table 4). The
5 m IRA-altered TWI data provide the best overall correlations
at each time interval and depth, with the best correlations
occurring during the mid-season measurements where
29.2 percent and 34.6 percent of the variability is explained
for the 0 to 40 cm and 0 to 15 cm moisture values,
respectively (p ⬍0.001) (Figure 3).
TWI, PEI, and CHM and Soil Moisture
Based on the results from the TWI regressions at each
resolution, the three surface layers (TWI, CHM, and PEI) were
regressed against the seasonal moisture values that provided
the best correlations with TWI. The 2 m, 5 m, and 10 m data
were regressed against the mid-season moisture, whereas the
D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2 1245
 TABLE 2. RESULTS OF TESTS FOR NORMALITY AND HOMOSCEDASTICITY FOR THE VARIABLES USED IN REGRESSION

Shapiro-Wilk Brown-Forsythe ANOVA

Variables W P-value W P-value P-value

Soil Moisture Data

Early-season Moisture (0-15 cm) 0.958 0.128^ 7.641 ⬍0.001* ⬍0.001*

Mid-season Moisture (0-15 cm) 0.951 0.058^ 11.173 ⬍0.001* ⬍0.001*
Late-season Moisture (0-15 cm) 0.956 0.083^ 12.746 ⬍0.001* ⬍0.001*
Early-season Moisture (0-40 cm) 0.955 0.099^ 9.379 ⬍0.001* ⬍0.001*
Mid-season Moisture (0-40 cm) 0.969 0.259^ 19.431 ⬍0.001* ⬍0.001*
Late-season Moisture (0-40 cm) 0.946 0.036 17.540 ⬍0.001* ⬍0.001*
2 m Lidar-derived Data
2 m Winsorized TWI 0.973 0.368^ 1.349 0.289 0.257
2 m Winsorized IRA-altered TWI 0.985 0.821^ 2.209 0.068 0.125
2 m PEI 0.977 0.502^ 0.904 0.506 0.551
2 m CHM 0.960 0.117^ 4.614 0.002* 0.002*
5 m Lidar-derived Data
5 m TWI 0.986 0.871^ 3.449 0.011* 0.030*
5 m IRA-altered TWI 0.960 0.118^ 5.941 0.001* 0.002*
5 m PEI 0.975 0.444^ 0.371 0.883 0.859
5 m CHM 0.967 0.230^ 7.419 ⬍0.001* ⬍0.001*
10 m Lidar-derived Data
10m TWI 0.980 0.634^ 4.317 0.003* 0.009*
10m IRA-altered TWI 0.959 0.109^ 4.409 0.004* 0.011*
10m PEI 0.980 0.625^ 1.047 0.419 0.493
10m CHM 0.969 0.260^ 1.088 0.393 0.380
20 m Lidar-derived Data
20 m TWI 0.952 0.062^ 2.817 0.028* 0.039*
20 m IRA-altered TWI 0.971 0.307^ 3.698 0.008* 0.012*
20 m PEI 0.974 0.398^ 2.070 0.091 0.135
20 m CHM 0.937 0.017 0.839 0.553 0.545

^ ⫽ normal distribution (p ⬎0.05), *

⫽ significant relationship (p ⬍0.05)

TABLE 3. PAIRWISE COMPARISONS OF SEASONAL MOISTURE MEASUREMENTS resolution data provided better predictions for the 0 to 40 cm
moisture measurements, while the 2 m and 5 m data had
Mean better predictions for the 0 to 15 cm measurements.
Difference P-Value

Early Season vs. Mid Season (0-40cm) 0.092 0.602

Early Season vs. Late Season (0-40cm) 0.198
Mid Season vs. Late Season (0-40cm) 0.107
*
⫽ significant difference with Bonferroni correction
late-season moisture was used for the 20 m data. While
there was some improvement with the use of additional
variables in a multiple regression approach, the improve-
ments were not substantive (Table 5).
The results revealed that more of the variation in soil
moisture attributes was explained using the 5 m resolution
data and the combined measurements of the IRA-altered TWI
and the PEI (Table 5). These two variables predicted
36.5 percent of the soil moisture variability within 15 cm of
the surface, but this is only a very marginal improvement
over using the IRA-altered 5 m TWI alone (i.e., 34.6 percent).
The second highest amount of variation was explained using
the 10 m resolution data, where the use of all three surface
layers explained 28.7 percent and 25.9 percent of the
variation for the 0 to 40 cm and 0 to 15 cm mid-season
moisture measurements, respectively (Table 5). There was
not, however, a clear improvement in the prediction when
one or both of the surface derivatives, (i.e., CHM and PEI),
were included. In general, however, the 10 m and 20 m
0.024* Discussion
0.098 In areas such as hilltops, it is important to model dispersive
flow as it is unlikely that the water flows in one single
direction. Tarboton (1997) argues that the FD8 algorithm
introduces “unrealistic dispersion” and that the D_infinity
algorithm should be used instead, as it minimizes dispersive
flow by assigning flow in one direction based on compass
direction or assigning flow to two pixels if the angle of
steepest descent covers both of these areas. The authors of
this study believe the use of the FD8 algorithm is justified,
since dispersive flow was not seen as disadvantageous when
modeling the flow of surface water in this environment. The
FD8 algorithm performs best on convex slopes (i.e., has the
smallest mean standard error) where the convex shape of
the landscape limits the effects of dispersive flow (Tarboton,
1997). However, in planar and concave landscapes, there is
a lot of dispersive flow which has the effect of increasing
the sum of the upslope area; thereby, increasing wetness
throughout the landscape. It would be of interest to model
the results of the TWI using the D_infinity algorithm in
future studies to see how well this output is related to soil
moisture.
The relationships observed here are consistent with
other studies showing that the TWI performs with mixed
results that vary with season. Recent studies with fine-
resolution lidar data (i.e., 1 to 2 m grid size) indicate that

1246 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2 PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING & REMOTE SENSING

 TABLE 4. LINEAR REGRESSION OF LIDAR-DERIVED TWI VERSUS SOIL MOISTURE

Early-Season Moisture Mid-Season Moisture Late-Season Moisture

0 to 40 cm 0 to 15 cm 0 to 40 cm 0 to 15 cm 0 to 40 cm 0 to 15 cm

PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING & REMOTE SENSING

TWI Predictor
2 2 2 2 2 2
Variable R R2adj P-val R R2adj P-val R R2adj P-val R R2adj P-val R R2adj P-val R R2adj P-val
2 m Resolution
TWI .099 .076^ .043* .108 .085 .034* .144 .125 .010* .117 .096 .022* .161 .142 .006* .098 .077 .036*
* * *
IRA-altered TWI .059 .035 .122 .110 .088^ .031 .196 .177^ .002 .229 .211^ .001 .173 .154^ .004* .198 .179^ .002*
5 m Resolution

TWI .154 .133 .010* .202 .182 .003* .199 .181 .002* .189 .170 .003* .186 .167 .003* .129 .109 .015*

IRA-altered TWI .221 .201^ .002* .322 .305^ ⬍.001* .308 .292^^ .000* .361 .346^^ ⬍.001* .287 .271^ ⬍.001* .270 .254^ ⬍.001*
10 m Resolution

TWI .168 .148^ .007* .170 .149^ .007* .231 .214^ .001* .188 .169^ .003* .212 .194^ .001* .125 .105^ .017*

IRA-altered TWI .138 .116 .016* .150 .128 .011* .210 .191 .002* .178 .159 .004* .183 .164 .003* .113 .092 .024*
20 m Resolution

TWI .110 .087 .032* .104 .082 .037* .130 .110 .015* .090 .069 .046* .160 .140 .006* .086 .064 .051
* * * * *
IRA-altered TWI .222 .203^ .002 .189 .168^ .004 .236 .218^ .001 .157 .137^ .007 .272 .255^ ⬍.001 .165 .145^ .006*
*
^ ⫽ best regression at each resolution per depth class by season, ^^ ⫽ best overall regression, ⫽ significant relationship (p⬍0.05)

D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2 1247
 (a) (b)
Figure 3. Regressions of 5 m IRA-altered TWI against Soil Moisture: (a) represents the 0 to 15 cm soil
moisture measurements, and (b) represents the 0 to 40 cm soil moisture measurements.

coefficients of determination between soil moisture and TWI
can range from 0.08 to 0.43 at 0 to 30 cm soil depth based
on wet and dry years, respectively (Schmidt and Persson,
2003). Similarly, Western et al. (1999) found that terrain
indices derived from a 5 m DEM and soil moisture in the top
30 cm of the soil profile explained little of the variation
during dry conditions and up to 43 percent of the variation
during wet conditions over an entire year. Their results
indicate that the TWI explains the most variation when the
soil is wet and the catchment has experienced significant
lateral redistribution across its surface; however, when the
soil is extremely wet the correlation between TWI and soil
moisture became weaker as soil porosity is more important
for controlling soil moisture during these conditions (West-
ern et al., 1999). This explanation corresponds well to the
weaker regressions observed during the significantly wetter
early-season measurements (Table 4).
The IRA-altered TWI generally explained more of
the variability in soil moisture than the raw TWI values at the
2 m, 5 m, and 20 m resolutions throughout the season. The
10 m data do not follow this trend, as they consistently have
slightly higher coefficients of determination when using the
raw TWI values (Table 4). The inverse trend observed with
the 10 m data is of interest because it provides the best raw
predictions of 0 to 40 cm soil moisture when compared to
values at other resolutions. Based on this relationship, it
could be assumed that the 10 m data would become the best
overall predictor when the IRA is applied. However, this
spatial correspondence did not occur; but rather the 5 m data
that showed the most significant improvements in correla-

TABLE 5. MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSIONS OF LIDAR-DERIVED VARIABLES VERSUS SOIL MOISTURE

Mid-Season Moisture (0 to 40cm) Mid-Season Moisture (0 to 15cm)

Lidar-derived Predictor Variables R2 R2adj P-value R2 R2adj P-value

2 m Surface Layers
IRA-altered TWI .196 .177^ .002* .229 .211 .001*
IRA-altered TWI ⫹ PEI .201 .163 .009* .256 .220^ .002*
IRA-altered TWI ⫹ CHM .199 .161 .009* .239 .203 .003*
IRA-altered TWI ⫹ PEI ⫹ CHM .204 .145 .024* .262 .208 .006*
5 m Surface Layers
IRA-altered TWI .308 .292 ⬍.001* .361 .346 ⬍.001*
IRA-altered TWI ⫹ PEI .325 .293^^ ⬍.001* .394 .365^^ ⬍.001*
IRA-altered TWI ⫹ CHM .309 .276 ⬍.001* .371 .341 ⬍.001*
IRA-altered TWI ⫹ PEI ⫹ CHM .327 .278 .001* .406 .362 ⬍.001*
10 m Surface Layers
TWI .231 .214 .001* .188 .169 .003*
TWI ⫹ PEI .248 .212 .003* .200 .162 .009*
TWI ⫹ CHM .308 .275 ⬍.001* .287 .253 .001*
TWI ⫹ PEI ⫹ CHM .335 .287^ .001* .310 .259^ .002*.
20 m Surface Layers Late-Season Moisture (0 to 40cm) Late-Season Moisture (0 to 15cm)
IRA-altered TWI .272 .255 ⬍.001* .165 .145 .006*
IRA-altered TWI ⫹ PEI .318 .286^ ⬍.001* .227 .190^ .004*
IRA-altered TWI ⫹ CHM .272 .237 .001* .168 .129 .021*
IRA-altered TWI ⫹ PEI ⫹ CHM .319 .269 .001* .229 .172 .013*

Note: ^ ⫽ best regression at each resolution, ^^ ⫽ best overall regression, *

⫽ significant relationship (p⬍0.05)

1248 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2 PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING & REMOTE SENSING

tions when the IRA data are used. The findings of Zhang and
Montgomery (1994) and Kuo et al. (1999) suggest that a 10 m
resolution is a sufficient resolution for hydrological modeling
or watershed simulations in most landscapes and this
corresponds to the raw data; however, when the IRA depres-
sion removal algorithm was applied to the 5 m data the best
correlations were achieved. These findings indicate that the
IRA algorithm improves the relationship between the TWI and
soil moisture in the boreal forest. The results indicate that
the IRA algorithm improves the ability of a DEM to model soil
moisture, especially at shallow depths where the effects of
overland flow are more significant. This result is in agree-
ment with Lindsay and Creed (2005) who suggest that using
the IRA depression removal algorithm can improve the
quality of the DEM for terrain modeling, particularly when
cell connectivity is important for the end uses of the DEM.
The values generated by the TWI are not consistent at all
spatial resolutions. This highlights the importance of
selecting the correct representative resolution to capture the
appropriate landscape features that influence soil moisture.
Guo et al. (2010) note that the optimal resolution of a DEM
should closely match the point spacing density of the lidar
data, while Mummery et al. (1999) note that remote sensing
techniques have the ability to detect trends in spatial
patterns that have a periodicity larger than the grid resolu-
tion (approximately twice as large). Thus, as the horizontal
grid resolution of the DEM increases, the ability of the grid to
represent and detect local changes in terrain variation also
increases. With respect to DEM resolution, it has been found
that the TWI is more highly affected by horizontal resolution
when compared to other primary and secondary terrain
indices (i.e., as grid size increases, the minimum unit area of
the DEM also increases, which in turn causes the absolute
minimum values of the specific catchment area and TWI to
increase) (Thompson et al., 2001). This pattern is evident in
our data, and corresponds to the results from Wolock and
Price (1994) using 30 m to 90 m grid sizes, Zhang and
Montgomery (1994) using 2 m to 90 m grid sizes, Thompson
et al. (2001) using 10 m to 30 m grid sizes, and Sørensen
and Seibert (2007) using 5 m to 50 m grid sizes. It has also
been acknowledged that DEMs with coarser spatial resolution
misrepresent the curvature of the landscape (Kuo et al.,
1999) and produce steeper slope gradients on flatter slopes
and lower slope gradients on steeper slopes (Thompson
et al., 2001). This function of topographic smoothing which
occurs with larger grid sizes causes the details of smaller
features to be lost, thereby affecting the range of TWI values
and the distribution of the moisture content in the grid cells.
Another important element to consider when modeling
soil moisture at different spatial resolutions is the depth
increment under investigation. Since soil moisture is not
static with depth, the depth sampled will also affect the
ability of the TWI to predict soil moisture. An analysis of the
differences between the seasonal moisture measurements
demonstrated that the early-season 0 to 40 cm moisture
measurements were significantly wetter than the late season,
but there were no significant differences between the 0 to
15 cm seasonal measurements. These results indicate a drying
trend in the deeper parts of the rooting zone compared to the
surface layer where this drying was not observed. The 2009
growing season was characterized by higher-than-average
rainfall, a low fire danger rating, and significantly fewer forest
fires when compared to the ten-year average in Ontario
(Environment Canada, 2010; Canadian Forest Service, 2010;
CIFFC, 2010). Consequently, soil moisture values for 2009
may not represent the typical range of soil moisture values
that occur during an average boreal summer, reducing the
correlations between measured moisture values and static
terrain indices derived from the lidar data.
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING & REMOTE SENSING
This conclusion is also supported by the changes that
occur in soil moisture predictions with changing resolution
and soil depth. At the 0 to 40 cm depth, the 20 m IRA-altered
TWI provides the second best predictions during the mid- and
late-season moisture measurements where it explains 21.8
percent and 25.5 percent of the variation in the soil moisture
data (p ⫽ 0.001 and p ⬍0.001, respectively). During the early
season, it surpasses the 5 m IRA-altered TWI to provide the
best prediction of 0 to 40 cm moisture by explaining 20.3
percent of the variation (p ⫽ 0.002). At the 0 to 15cm depth,
the 2 m IRA-altered TWI provides the second best prediction
during the mid- and late-season moisture measurements
where it explains 21.1 percent and 17.9 percent of the
variation in the data (p ⫽ 0.001 and p ⫽ 0.002, respectively).
However, during the early season, it performs poorly explain-
ing only 8.8 percent of the variation in the 0 to 15 cm soil
moisture data (p ⫽ 0.031). These results indicate that coarser
resolution data seem to detect trends in soil moisture at
greater depths, while finer resolutions may be more adept at
resolving trends in soil moisture at shallow depths.
Developing an effective soil moisture model based on
lidar-derived terrain variables was a key goal of this
research; however, many factors complicate the effectiveness
of static terrain indices to predict soil moisture. Some of
these variables include data resolution, soil depth, and
seasonal variability. The greatest challenge in predicting soil
moisture from static terrain variables is the difficulty that
arises because of the spatial and temporal variability of soils
(Moore et al., 1993b; Gessler et al., 2000). While lidar DEMs
and terrain derivatives are suitable for modeling landscape
features, the inherent variability in soil moisture at depth
affects subsurface parameters that cannot be captured
explicitly when using surface terrain variables.
Agnew et al. (2006) suggest using the Soil Topographic
Index (STI) which adds variables for soil depth and saturated
hydraulic conductivity of the soil to the TWI. This index
requires the user to have access to detailed soils data which
have not been produced for much of the boreal forest of
northern Ontario due to the limited agricultural potential of
this region. It would be of interest to utilize the STI for
future studies where comprehensive soil data are available.
The magnitude of soil moisture spatial variability is
seen in the soil moisture data, which sometimes showed
large variation among the three measurements made in each
plot. For example, plots IH34 and SB21 had measurements
at one sample site that consistently skewed the average
moisture values for the plot. The temporal variability of soil
moisture is revealed by the statistically significant change in
overall soil moisture between the early-season measurements
and the late-season measurements.
In order to counteract the effects of spatial variability,
the lidar-derived variables were examined at four different
resolutions to evaluate the effect of cell size on soil moisture
indices. The temporal variability was examined by using
three different seasonal measurements. While it was only
possible to collect soil moisture measurements during one
field season, it would be ideal to gather repeated soil
moisture measurements over multiple years to generate a
dataset that encompasses the full range of soil moisture
variation. It is anticipated that this time series would
provide a clearer understanding of the relationships between
the lidar-derived terrain variables and soil moisture.
The surfaces generated in this study were restricted to
individual flightlines, and thus, not conducive to watershed-
scale surface models. The high-precision lidar data were
flown during leaf-on conditions in flightlines to cover a
network of forestry plots for modeling forest stand variables;
however, more complete “wall-to-wall” surfaces are neces-
sary for a more comprehensive understanding of the poten-
D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2 1249
tial of these terrain variables for ecosite prediction and
productivity modeling. The use of flightline data hindered
landscape modeling, as it gives the user a disjointed view of
the terrain lacking important linkages to the wider topo-
graphic context of drainage basins, watersheds, and ecosys-
tem function. As a result, this research examined surface
morphology at the plot level and, at best, represents terrain
modeling at the hillslope scale (i.e., 100 to 1,000 m in
length). To optimize soil moisture modeling, it would be
advantageous to acquire lidar data during leaf-off conditions,
thus ensuring that there are no conflicting signals near the
ground surface which negatively influence the accuracy of
the DEM due to low lying vegetation or dense shrub cover
(Su and Bork, 2006). However, this reduces the utility of
lidar data for other forestry related applications.
Conclusions
Ecological land classification distinguishes forest types based
on distinctions between soil moisture and nutrient regimes.
Since a better spatial understanding of the ecological vari-
ability in soil moisture can facilitate mapping, planning, and
forest management practices, lidar-derived indices, specifi-
cally the TWI, PEI, and CHM, were evaluated to determine how
effectively they model soil moisture patterns. The TWI
represents surface saturation based on surface morphology of
the DEM, the PEI represents relative landscape position, and
the CHM represents the height of the forest canopy at any
given cell. The TWI and PEI contributed more significantly to
the regressions with soil moisture; however, due to the
complexity of modeling soil moisture patterns in heteroge-
neous forested landscapes, the TWI performed with mixed
results but displayed some interesting trends with respect to
seasonal moisture variability, soil depth and DEM resolution.
It was observed that the 2 m, 5 m, and 10 m TWI
explained the most variation during the mid-season meas-
urements, while the 20 m TWI data explained the most
variation during the early- and late-season measurements.
The best overall soil moisture predictions occurred at 5 m
spatial resolution using both the IRA-altered TWI and the PEI
to predict soil moisture in the top 15 cm of the soil profile
where they explained 36.5 percent of the variation in the
measured soil moisture during the mid-season. In general, it
was observed that the 10 m and 20 m spatial resolution data
gave better predictions for the 0 to 40 cm moisture measure-
ments, while the 2 m and 5 m data had better predictions
for the 0 to 15 cm measurements. This indicates that coarser
resolutions may be more suited to modeling soil moisture
trends at greater depths, while finer resolutions may be
more adept at resolving trends at shallow depths. The
results also indicate that the IRA depression removal algo-
rithm significantly increased the prediction efficiency for
the 2 m, 5 m, and 20 m resolution data when compared to
the raw lidar DEM surfaces. These results support the use of
the IRA depression removal algorithm to improve the
quality of a DEM for terrain modeling, particularly when
cell connectivity is important for the end uses of the DEM.
Lidar data provide superior capacity for deriving high-
resolution terrain variables that are related to hydrology,
surface flow, soil moisture retention, and exposure. This
capacity offers enhanced potential for modeling of soil
moisture, a variable that is significant within the ecosite
classification framework at site and landscape scales as well
as for the modeling of ecosystem productivity. Greater
understanding of ecosite and site productivity potential will
assist forest managers in their decision making related to
harvesting plans and silvicultural treatments. Although the
relationships observed in this study support these concepts,
further exploration of the potential of these precise terrain
1250 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2
variables for ecosite prediction and ecosystem productivity
modeling are required, particularly at a broader spatial scale.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Murray Woods, Dave
Etheridge, and Peter Uhlig of the Ministry of Natural
Resources for their assistance with field logistics and
providing forest plot data. Thanks also to our field assistants
(Anne Hagerman, Stephanie Gagliardi, Chad Babcock, and
Aaron Tamminga). Financial support for this research was
provided by the Ontario Centre of Excellence for Earth and
Environmental Technologies (OCE-EET), the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and Queen’s
University.
References
Agnew, L.J., S. Lyon, P. Gerard-Marchant, V.B. Colllins, A.J. Lembo,
T.S. Steenhuis, and M.T. Walter, 2006. Identifying hydrologi-
cally sensitive areas: Bridging the gap between science and
application, Journal of Environmental Management, 78:63–76.
Axelsson, P., 1999. Processing of laser scanner data - Algorithms
and applications, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote
Sensing, 54:138–147.
Beven, K.J., and M.J. Kirkby, 1979. A physically based, variable
contributing area model of basin hydrology, Hydrological
Sciences Bulletin, 24(1):43–69.
Brown, M.B., and A.B. Forsythe, 1974. Robust tests for equality of
variances, Journal of the American Statistical Association,
69:364-367.
Canadian Forest Service, 2010. The Atlas of Canada: Forest Danger
Rating, 2009. URL: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/auth/english/maps/
environment/naturalhazards/forest_fires/firedangerrating, Natural
Resources Canada, (last date accessed: 23 September 2012).
Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre (CIFFC), 2010. 2009 Canada
Report. URL: http://www.ciffc.ca/images/stories/pdf/2009_Canada_
Report.pdf, Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre, (last date
accessed: 23 September 2012).
Dixon, W.J., 1960. Simplified estimation from censored normal
samples, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 31(2):385–391.
Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Working Group, 2009. Ecosites
of Ontario, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario,
Operational Draft: 29 April 20.
Ecological Stratification Working Group, 1995. A National Ecologi-
cal Framework for Canada, Appendix 1: Narrative Descriptions
of Terrestrial Ecozones and Ecoregions of Canada, Number 96:
Abitibi Plains, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research
Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research and
Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate,
Ecozone Analysis Branch, Ottawa-Hull, Ontario, pp. 67–68.
Environment Canada, 2010. Monthly Data Report for 2009, Tim-
mins, Ontario, URL: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/
climateData/monthlydata_e.html?timeframe53&Prov5XX&
StationID54180&Year52009&Month51&Day51, National
Climate Data and Information Archive, Environment Canada
(last date accessed: 23 September 2012).
Florinsky, I.V., R.G. Eilers, G.R. Manning, and L.G. Fuller, 2002.
Prediction of soil properties by digital terrain modelling,
Environmental Modelling & Software, 17:295–311.
Freeman, T.G., 1991. Calculating catchment area with divergent
flow based on a regular grid, Computers & Geosciences,
17(3):413–422.
Gessler, P.E., I.D. Moore, N.J. McKenzie, and P.J. Ryan, 1995. Soil-
landscape modelling and spatial prediction of soil attributes,
International Journal of Geographical Information Science,
9(4):421–432.
Gessler, P.E, O.A. Chawick, F. Chamran, L. Althouse, and K.
Holmes, 2000. Modeling soil-landscape and ecosystem proper-
ties using terrain attributes, Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 64:2046–2056.
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING & REMOTE SENSING
Guo, Q., W. Li, H. Yu, and O. Alvarez, 2010. Effects of topographic
variability and lidar sampling density on several DEM interpo-
lation methods, Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote
Sensing, 76(6):701-–712.
Habib, A., K.I. Bang, A.P. Kersting, and D-C. Lee, 2009. Error budget
of lidar systems and quality control of derived data, Photogram-
metric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 75(9):1093–1108.
Heathman, G.C., P.J. Starks, and M.A. Brown, 2003. Time domain
reflectometry field calibration in the Little Washita River
Experimental Watershed, Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 67: 52–61.
Hills, G.A., 1959. A Ready Reference to the Description of the Land
of Ontario and its Productivity, Ontario Department of Lands
and Forests, Division of Research, Maple, Ontario, 142 p.
Hodgson, M.E., and P. Bresnahan, 2004. Accuracy of airborne lidar-
derived elevation: Empirical assessment and error budget,
Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 70(3):331–339.
Kimmins, J.P., 2004. Forest Ecology: A Foundation for Sustainable
Forest Management and Environmental Ethics in Forestry, Third
edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey,
611 p.
Kuo, W-L., T.S. Steenhuis, C.E. McCulloch, C.L. Mohler, D.A.
Weinstein, S.D. DeGloria, and D.P. Swaney, 1999. Effect of grid
size on runoff and soil moisture for a variable-source-area
hydrology model, Water Resources Research, 35(11):3419–3428.
Lim, K., P. Treitz, M. Wulder, B. St-Onge, and M. Flood, 2003.
LiDAR remote sensing of forest structure, Progress in Physical
Geography, 21(1):88–106.
Lindsay, J.B., and I.F. Creed, 2005. Removal of artifact depressions
from digital elevation models: Towards a minimum impact
approach, Hydrological Processes, 19:3113–3126.
Moore, I.D., P.E. Gessler, G.A. Nielson, and G.A. Peterson, 1993a.
Soil attribute prediction using terrain analysis, Soil Science
Society of America Journal, 57:443–452.
Moore, I.D., T.W. Norton, and J.E. Williams, 1993b. Modelling
environmental heterogeneity in forested landscapes, Journal of
Hydrology, 150(2-4):717–747.
Mummery, D., M. Battaglia, C.L. Beadle, C.R.A. Turnbull, and
R. McLeod, 1999. An application of terrain and environmental
modelling in a large-scale forestry experiment, Forest Ecology
and Management, 118(1-3):149–159.
Noborio, K., 2001. Measurements of soil water content and electrical
conductivity by time domain reflectometry: A review, Computers
and Electronics in Agriculture, 31:213–237.
Ontario Government, 2006. Forest Resources of Ontario: State of the
Forest Report 2006, Forests Division, Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, Forest Information Series, 159 p.
Quinn, P., K. Beven, P. Chevallier, and O. Planchon, 1991. The
prediction of hillslope flow paths for distributed hydrological
modeling using digital terrain models, Hydrological Processes,
5:59–79.
Raber, G.T., J.R. Jensen, S.R. Schill, and K. Schuckman, 2002.
Creation of digital terrain models using an adaptive lidar
vegetation point removal process, Photogrammetric Engineering
& Remote Sensing, 68(12):1307–1315.
Reutebuch, S.E., H.-E. Anderson, and R.J. McGaughey, 2005. Light
Detection and Ranging (LIDAR): An emerging tool for multiple
resource inventory, Journal of Forestry, 103(6):286–292.
Schmidt, F., and A. Persson, 2003. Comparison of DEM data capture
and topographic wetness indices, Precision Agriculture, 4:179–192.
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING & REMOTE SENSING
View publication stats
Sørensen, R., and J. Seibert, 2007. Effects of DEM resolution on the
calculation of topographical indices: TWI and its components,
Journal of Hydrology, 347:79–89.
Su, J., and E. Bork, 2006. Influence of vegetation, slope, and lidar
sampling angle on DEM accuracy, Photogrammetric Engineering
& Remote Sensing, 72(11):1265–1274.
Tarboton, D.G., 1997. A new method for the determination of flow
directions and contributing areas in grid digital elevation
models, Water Resources Research, 33(2):309–319.
Taylor, K.C., R.W. Arnup, B.G. Merchant, W.J Parton, and J.
Nieppola, 2000. A Field Guide to Forest Ecosystems of North-
eastern Ontario, NEST Field Guide FG-001, Second edition,
Northeast Science & Technology Branch, Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, South Porcupine, Ontario, 261 p.
Thompson, J.A., J.C. Bell, and C.A. Butler, 2001.
Digital elevation model resolution: Effects on terrain
attribute calculation and quantitative soil-landscape modeling,
Geoderma, 100:67–89.
Thompson, J.A., E.M. Pena-Yewtukhiw, and J.H. Grove, 2006.
Soil-landscape modeling across a physiographic region:
Topographic patterns and model transportability, Geoderma,
133(1-2):57–70.
Topp, G.C., J.L. Davis, and A.P. Annan, 1980. Electromagnetic
determination of soil water content: Measurements in
coaxial transmission lines, Water Resources Research,
16(3):574–582.
Treitz, P., K. Lim, M. Woods, D. Pitt, D. Nesbitt, and D. Etheridge,
2012. LiDAR sampling intensity for forest resource inventories
in Ontario, Canada, Remote Sensing, 4(4):830–848.
Wainer, H., 1976. Robust statistics: A survey and some perceptions,
Journal of Educational Statistics, 1(4):285–312.
Western, A.W., R.B. Grayson, G. Blöschl, G.R. Willgoose, and T.A
McMahon, 1999. Observed spatial organization of soil moisture
and its relation to terrain indices, Water Resources Research,
35(5):797–810.
Wilson, J.P., and J.C. Gallant, 2000. Terrain Analysis: Principles
and Applications, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
479 p.
Wilson, D.J., A.W. Western, and R.B. Grayson, 2005. A terrain and
data-based method for generating the spatial distribution
of soil moisture, Advances in Water Resources, 28(1):43–54.
Wolock, D.M., and C.V. Price, 1994. Effects of digital
elevation model map scale and data resolution on a
topography based watershed model, Water Resources Research,
30:3041–3052.
Wolock, D.M., and G.J. McCabe, Jr., 1995. Comparison of single flow
and multiple flow direction algorithms for computing topo-
graphic parameters in TOPMODEL, Water Resources Research,
31(5):1315–1324.
Zhang, W., and D.R. Montgomery, 1994. Digital elevation model grid
size, landscape representation and hydrological simulations,
Water Resources Research, 30:1019–1028.
Zhou, X., C. Peng, Q.-L. Dang, J. Chen, and S. Parton, 2007. A
simulation of temporal and spatial variations in carbon at
landscape level: A case study for Lake Abitibi Model Forest in
Ontario, Canada, Mitigations and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change, 12:525–543.
(Received 12 December 2011; accepted 07 February 2012; final
version 04 June 2012)
D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2 1251