There was a presentation at foss4G in 2007 about a brazilian agency
who was using stat images to track illegal logging. They had all sorts
of issues with clouds and the like.

http://2007.foss4g.org/presentations/view.php?abstract_id=215

The software they developed was TerraLib http://www.dpi.inpe.br/terralib/

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Catherine
Burton<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Abel,
>
>
>
> In my experience it is very difficult to count individual trees on any kind
> of large scale project.  There are two remotely sensed image processing
> products which may be useful that I can think of off of the top of my head:
> LiDAR and standard multi-spectral low-resolution imagery.  Allow me to offer
> a highly simplified explanation (mostly because I would need to dust off the
> details in my head):
>
>
>
> -          LiDAR is a data-cloud of points that can penetrate tree canopy.
> LiDAR data allows an analyst identify individual trees; it is the only
> remotely sensed data that can penetrate tree canopy.  It is very, very
> expensive to collect large swaths of LiDAR data.  Some states and /or
> municipalities collect it for various reasons and sometimes you can get your
> hands on it if you are very nice. ;).
>
> -          Standard multi-spectral low-resolution imagery like LANDSAT can
> be classified using remote sensing image processing techniques to show
> forested versus non-forested or logged areas.  By doing a little ground
> “truthing” and going out into a wooded area featured in a given LANDSAT
> image, then counting how many trees are within a given area on the ground,
> an analyst can extrapolate that data to his or her classification system.  A
> little aggregating later and viola, you are able to estimate how many trees
> went missing after a logging event takes place.  LANDSAT data is really
> pretty good for picking up logged vs. non-logged areas and is free.
>
>
>
> In 2004 -2005, I worked on a project with NASA Ames DEVELOP Program to map
> carbon sequestration after logging in a forest in Oregon.  I’ve posted our
> poster up on slideshare and you can check it out if you like:
>
>
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/CatherineHuybrechtsBurton/nasa-ames-develop-program-usda-fremont-winema-forest-carbon-management-project-2005
>
>
>
> These are only a couple image processing techniques for identifying logging
> on a large scale.  I’m happy to point you in the direction of more
> information on the subject if you are interested.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Catherine
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> Catherine Huybrechts Burton
>
> Owner / Member, Endpoint Environmental LLC
>
> Lead Organizer, WebMapSocial Meetup Group
>
> Office: (415) 668-4222
>
> Cell: (415) 902-0403
>
> Endpoint Environmental LLC - Changing Imagery Into Information
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Abel Ludba
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 2:02 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Geowanking] Monitoring Illegal Logging
>
>
>
> Hi.
>
>
> I am  trying to get an overview of existing tools/technics to map and/or
> handle  Illegal Logging. We are trying to detect (if possible) every signle
> logged tree
>
>
>
> These could also include all kinds of:  Sensors, GPS, GIS, Remote Sensing,
>  etc.
>
>
>
> Any comment will be very welcomed.
>
>
>
> Abel.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Reclaim your name @ymail.com or @rocketmail.com. Get your new email address
> now!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geowanking mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
>
>

_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org

Reply via email to