Figure 1.
Location of the study area (A: Cashew plantation area, B: Rubber plantation area) AVNIR-2 data false color composite (Red:NIR, G:Red, B = Green color composite).
Figure 2.
Cashew plantation area with different growth stages (a) juvenile, (b) young, (c) old and rubber plantation area with (d) juvenile, (e) young, (f) old growth stages.
Table 1.
Comparison between natural and plantation forest characteristics.
Figure 3.
Flow chart of the methedology.
Table 2.
Pearson's correlation matrix of various biophysical parameters of cashew plants.
Table 3.
Pearson's correlation matrix of various biophysical parameters of rubber plants.
Figure 4.
Relationship between age vs biomass with other biophysical parameters of cashew plants (a) height (b) crown diameter (c) DBH and (d) tree density respectively.
Figure 5.
Relationship between age vs biomass with other biophysical parameters of rubber plants (a) height (b) crown diameter (c) DBH and (d) tree density respectively.
Figure 6.
Relationship between PALSAR σ0 and biophysical parameters of cashew plants (a) biomass (b) age (c) crown diameter (d) height (e) DBH and (f) basal area respectively.
Figure 7.
Relationship between PALSAR σ0 and biophysical parameters of rubber plants (a) biomass (b) age (c) crown diameter (d) height (e) DBH and (f) basal area respectively.
Figure 8.
Natural forests biomass based on (cashew biomass MLR model 1).
Figure 9.
Natural forests biomass based on (rubber biomass MLR model 2).
Figure 10.
Natural forests biomass based on (cashew + rubber biomass MLR model 3).
Table 4.
MLR model based on cashew and rubber plants biomass.
Table 5.
Percentage of biomass distribution for different biomass map.
Figure 11.
Biomass difference map (MLR model 1 – MLR model 2).
Figure 12.
Validation results of biomass map (a) Relationship between PALSAR predicted natural forests biomass plotted against field measured biomass of natural forests (b) the error in PALSAR predicted natural forests biomass plotted against field measured biomass of natural forests.