LiDAR Analysis

In this week's exercise, I used LiDAR data from the state of Virginia to focus on various tools and analysis available to us in ArcGIS Pro.  I created four maps displayed in two separate layouts for easier comparison and analysis.  I also created a third layout to illustrate the study location.  First, I used the LAS to Raster tool to develop a canopy DEM layer and a ground DEM layer.  I then used the Minus tool to create a new raster that showed canopy height.  I then used the LAS to MultiPoint tool to create a ground layer and a vegetation layer as determined from the LiDAR file. I then set conditions, added layers, and divided to create a density layer.  The density layer is dimensionless, but is based on a 0 to 1 scale of increasing density.

I combined these two final maps into one layout and set them to the same scale and color scheme for easy comparison.  The first thing that jumped out at me is that the areas of most density do not necessarily correlate with the areas of tallest canopy.  This indicates that the biomass creating the most dense vegetation is likely shrub growth or early to middle aged areas of forest growth.  The tallest canopies indicate the oldest trees and these appear to reduce the ability of undergrowth to become as dense as some of the shorter areas of the forest where competition among vegetation types is likely greater.  See map below for reference:

For the next map I used the Digital Surface Model(DSM) and displayed it alongside the original LiDAR scene.  I used the DSM because it would be a more apples to apples comparison with the original LiDAR scene which had not been filtered for ground or canopy points.  I again used the same color scheme and they look like a 2D model and 3D model of the same scene, as you would expect.  There are slight differences between the lower and upper limits, but since the DSM does filter non-ground points, this variation is expected.  See map below for reference:

I was unable to change the labels of the legend for my LiDAR scene, so the formatting is not as consistent as I would like, but the general information is understandable.