Next Article in Journal
Influence of Fuel Load Dynamics on Carbon Emission by Wildfires in the Clay Belt Boreal Landscape
Next Article in Special Issue
Differentiation of Alternate Harvesting Practices Using Annual Time Series of Landsat Data
Previous Article in Journal
Adaptive Variation and Introgression of a CONSTANS-Like Gene in North American Red Oaks
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 8
Issue 1
10.3390/f8010007
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Direct Measurement of Tree Height Provides Different Results on the Assessment of LiDAR Accuracy

by
Emanuele Sibona
1,
Alessandro Vitali
2,
Fabio Meloni
1,
Lucia Caffo
3,
Alberto Dotta
3,
Emanuele Lingua
4,
Renzo Motta
1 and
Matteo Garbarino
1,2,*
1
DISAFA: Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali e Alimentari, University of Torino, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco (TO), Italy
2
D3A: Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, Marche Polytechnic University, Via Brecce Bianche 10, 60131 Ancona (AN), Italy
3
CFAVS: Consorzio Forestale Alta Val di Susa, Via Pellousiere 6, 10056 Oulx (TO), Italy
4
TESAF: Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padova, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2017, 8(1), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/f8010007
Submission received: 25 October 2016 / Revised: 15 December 2016 / Accepted: 20 December 2016 / Published: 23 December 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Optimizing Forest Inventories with Remote Sensing Techniques)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In this study, airborne laser scanning-based and traditional field-based survey methods for tree heights estimation are assessed by using one hundred felled trees as a reference dataset. Comparisons between remote sensing and field-based methods were applied to four circular permanent plots located in the western Italian Alps and established within the Alpine Space project NewFor. Remote sensing (Airborne Laser Scanning, ALS), traditional field-based (indirect measurement, IND), and direct measurement of felled trees (DIR) methods were compared by using summary statistics, linear regression models, and variation partitioning. Our results show that tree height estimates by Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) approximated to real heights (DIR) of felled trees. Considering the species separately, Larix decidua was the species that showed the smaller mean absolute difference (0.95 m) between remote sensing (ALS) and direct field (DIR) data, followed by Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris (1.13 m and 1.04 m, respectively). Our results cannot be generalized to ALS surveys with low pulses density (<5/m2) and with view angles far from zero (nadir). We observed that the tree heights estimation by laser scanner is closer to actual tree heights (DIR) than traditional field-based survey, and this was particularly valid for tall trees with conical shape crowns.

1. Introduction

Sustainable forest management needs a huge amount of tree parameters such as species distribution, timber volume, and average tree height as the basis of broad scale forest inventories [1]. Among these, tree height is one of the most important variables in forest inventory, as it is often used in the estimation of forest growth, biomass, carbon stock, and site productivity [2]. Traditional forest inventory field methods for forest height estimation are expensive, time consuming, and almost impossible to perform over large areas [3]. When dealing with large areas, a sampling plot approach is commonly arranged in order to reduce costs, and then diameter-height relations are constructed to predict individual tree heights for those areas that were not surveyed. Using remote sensing (RS) techniques allows for the reduction of those constraints, thereby obtaining spatially continuous data over large study areas on a cost efficient basis [4]. Tree height estimation from the ground is difficult due to treetop placement, which is often hidden by the branches of other trees. While with RS survey from above, the problem of hidden treetops is reduced, at least for canopy trees. Among RS techniques, the potential of Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) in tree heights estimation has been widely demonstrated [5,6,7]; it has been shown to be useful for the estimation of other forest stand attributes such as stand volume [6] and basal area [8] as well. The impact of errors in tree height measurements has been shown to have a stronger effect on individual tree volume estimates than errors in species composition [9], but this depends on the surveyed species and the obtained height errors. For this reason, the accuracy assessment of tree height measurement derived from ALS is a very important issue in the forestry field.
The accuracy of forest attributes derived from RS data is usually assessed using traditional field surveys that can be area-based [4] or tree-based [10]. Field-based surveys always take advantage of trigonometric approaches using rangefinder devices. These field-based data are commonly assumed as being the ground truth for RS data, but in actuality they are measured with errors. In spite of the huge amount of recent papers that use field-based tree height estimations as ground truth for RS data assessment [2,4], the accuracy of this indirect measurement used as reference is often not declared.
In this paper, we considered as ground truth (Ground Control Points, GCPs) one hundred felled trees to test tree heights measured with two estimation approaches: Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) and classical field surveys. Specific goals of the paper are: (1) to evaluate the use of ALS data for tree height estimation in a comparison with traditional field-based survey method; (2) to use tree height of felled trees to assess the accuracy and bias of field-based survey method and its influence on ALS testing; (3) to study the relative influence of tree size and species on the divergence between ALS remote sensing and direct field-based estimations.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Cotolivier forest is about 4000 ha and is located on the right bank of the Upper Susa Valley (Piedmont, Italy), between Oulx and Bardonecchia (45°2′ N, 6°46′ E). It is a north facing slope ranging from the montane belt (about 1000 m a.s.l.) up to the treeline (about 2200 m a.s.l.). The mean annual temperature is 6.7 °C and the total precipitation is about 614.9 mm (Bardonecchia Pian del Sole, 1585 m a.s.l., 2004–2015 period). The topography of the area is complex with steep slopes and high roughness. Both productive and protective forests are present, with intense forest exploitation on more accessible sites, but topography limits the use of a massive mechanization. Pinus sylvestris L. stands dominate at lower elevation, with Picea abies (L.) H.Karst. and Larix decidua Mill. Prevalent at higher elevations. This mixed conifers forest is characterized by a high structural diversity: Larix stands range from wood pasture with sparse big trees on more accessible sites [11] to dense and young stands, while Pinus and Picea stands show less structural diversity.

2.2. Sampling Design and Data Collection

Four permanent circular plots with 20 m radiuses were established during a field campaign in 2013 within the “NewFor” Alpine Space project [12]. Within these plots, we estimated the total height of 100 trees (28% of the surveyed trees within the plots) by using three different survey methods: (a) traditional field-based survey here defined as “indirect” measurement (IND); (b) remote sensing measurement through Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS); (c) direct measurement on felled trees, referred as “direct” measurement (DIR).

2.2.1. Indirect Field-Based Survey (IND)

Field-Map™ integrated system [13] was used to accomplish the traditional field-based survey that was done during June–July 2012. It includes a GPS receiver (GeoXM 2005 [14]) to obtain georeferenced data of the plot center (differential correction in laboratory with post-processing method), and a laser rangefinder (TruPulse™ 360b [15]) to measure tree heights and relative positions (distances and angles) to the plot center. A field computer (ARMOR [16]) equipped with mobile GIS software was used for real time data mapping and 3-D visualization of trees. Diameter (DBH), crown projections measure, and species have been collected for all 100 trees (DBH > 4 cm).

2.2.2. LiDAR Survey (ALS)

ALS data were acquired in June 2012 by a helicopter flight, which covered the whole study area. The LiDAR sensor used was an Optech™ ALTM 3100EA, that allowed a planimetric position accuracy of less than 0.30 m and an elevation accuracy (Z) of less than 0.15 m. Four echoes of each laser pulse were recorded flying at an average altitude of 400 m, resulting in an average point sampling density of 10 points/m2. The vendor provided the ALS data classified as ground and non-ground points using Terrascan software [17]. The original data (ALS10) were thinned with the module lasthin of the LAStools software [18], obtaining two new point densities: 5 (ALS5) and 1 (ALS1) points/m2. This data thinning methodology is commonly adopted to test the effects of point density on forest attributes [19,20,21]. Digital Terrain Model (DTM) and DSM (Digital Surface Model) of ALS10 were generated by the vendor with a grid size of 1 m using TerraScan software. The thinned ALS point clouds were used to generate raster data of the DTMs and DSMs of the area with a grid size of 1 m using the “las2dem” tool. These layers were subtracted to produce the CHM (Canopy Height Model) that was employed as a base raster for trees positions and heights detection [1,22,23,24]. The CHMs have undergone a surface smoothing using a Gaussian kernel filter [22]. Then focal statistics with a local maximum detection algorithm (“Pouring” algorithm implemented in HALCON, similar to an inverted, classical watershed-algorithm [1]) were used to extract potential treetops from the smoothed CHMs. The detected trees were then analyzed through a conditional script that considers a minimum distance and height difference from the nearest trees in order to identify and delete potential false positives [24]. The method is fully automated and has been implemented as a workflow of geoprocessing tools (Model Builder) within the software ESRI ArcGIS™ [25]. The output is a shapefile containing tree position and height [20]. We manually co-registered the remote sensing data to the field dataset by using a very high spatial resolution (20 cm) aerial image acquired a month before the ALS data in order to correctly match the trees detected remotely to each GPS-positioned tree [24,26]. False negatives have been consequently detected by experienced human interpreter [22]. Only correctly assigned trees (true positives) were used in this work.

2.2.3. Direct Field-Based Survey (DIR)

The 100 felled trees were the result of two different harvesting methods: A clearcut on an almost pure L. decidua stand (plot 1) and thinning in multilayered mixed conifer stands (plots 2, 3, 4) (Table 1). Tree length plus the stump height was measured for each felled tree to get “direct” data, which have been considered in the analysis process as ground truth.

2.3. Data Analysis

We obtained five datasets that were used to compare remote sensing ALS data with three different point densities (ALS10, ALS5, and ALS1) and field-based estimation methods (IND) by using direct measurements on felled trees (DIR) as ground control measure. We tested the statistical difference between the five measurements by using a Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared non-parametric test. We calculated standard summary statistics of tree height measures for both the whole sample and the three main species (Larix, Picea, Pinus) separately. The accuracy of tree heights as measured by ALS data was assessed by mean differences (MD) and root-mean-square errors (RMSE) between IND-ALS and DIR-ALS for the whole dataset and divided by species. We performed a regression analysis between ALS and IND data against our ground truth (DIR), again both for the entire sample and for each species separately to further investigate the observed differences. Then we regressed heights from the two field datasets (IND and DIR) against each other. We applied the hierarchical partitioning approach [27] through the statistical package hier.part [28] to calculate the independent contribution of tree attributes (real height, DBH, crown surface area and species) in determining the difference in absolute value between DIR and ALS estimates. Because of a non-uniform distribution of species along the range of tree heights, the hierarchical partitioning was applied to the whole dataset and to the species separately. Summary statistics, regression analyses, and hierarchical partitioning were performed in R software [29].

3. Results

L. decidua was the tallest species in our dataset followed by P. abies and P. silvestris (Figure 1), and some differences between estimation methods existed. However, the five estimation methods were not statistically different from each other (Kruskal-Wallis test, p = 0.92). Data thinning on the original ALS10 data had a strong effect on the number of the detected trees. Almost half (56) of the 100 felled trees were detected with ALS1 and 73 with ALS5 (Table 2). The more affected species was P. sylvestris (38% with ALS1) and the less influenced was P. abies (68% with ALS1). From a comparison between mean tree heights measured by ALS data and IND (Table 3), emerged that ALS10 slightly overestimated tree heights (23.51 m vs. 23.44 m) and the opposite trend was observed for Picea (19.64 m vs. 20.26 m). Considering the mean tree heights of the whole dataset (All) an overestimation was obtained by using the ALS1 point cloud, this trend was particularly evident for Picea and Pinus species (Table 3). A comparison between ALS10 and real tree heights (DIR) revealed that the mean value was identical (23.51 m), but some differences emerged for Picea and Pinus species. The biggest difference between ALS10 and DIR height average measurements was observed for Pinus (0.58 m) and Picea (−0.33 m), but considering the difference between ALS1 and DIR those values increased (Pinus 1.18 m and Picea 0.55 m).
Every model obtained through regression analysis showed an overestimation of small trees and an underestimation of the taller ones. The differences between the models lie in the magnitude of these over/underestimates. All the regressions were significant (p < 0.001) and every model gave very good fit if we consider the population as a whole (R2 > 0.9). In the ALS10 vs. IND models (Figure 2) P. sylvestris achieved a poorer fit (R2 = 0.67), while L. decidua achieved a better fit (R2 = 0.73) and P. abies emerged as being the best fitting species (R2 = 0.95). All P. abies trees were underestimated by ALS as well as L. decidua taller trees (Figure 2). A similar pattern was observed in the ALS10 vs. DIR model, but with less underestimation (Figure 3a). In the ALS10 vs. DIR model (Figure 3a) among the studied species P. sylvestris achieved a poorer fit (R2 = 0.69), while P. abies and L. decidua performed better (R2 = 0.79 and 0.81, respectively). In the regression between DIR and IND measurements (Figure 3b) P. sylvestris and P. abies were the best fitting species (R2 = 0.80) followed by L. decidua (R2 = 0.71). In this model L. decidua was underestimated by IND, instead P. sylvestris and P. abies showed a high correspondence between the two measurements (Figure 3b).
The error in the individual tree height estimation was higher (RMSE = 1 m) when ALS was tested against IND (Table 4) than in the case of DIR (RMSE = 0.76 m, Table 5). Overall, RMSE increased with thinned ALS1 data both by using IND and DIR data as ground truth, and this tendency was particularly evident for Picea and Pinus. The accuracy assessment between IND and DIR measurements gave an RMSE of 1.08 for All trees, 1.84 for Larix, 1.34 for Picea, and 0.94 for Pinus.
From the variation partitioning approach on the whole dataset, it was revealed that species had the highest independent effect (54.8%) on the absolute value of the difference between DIR and ALS, followed by real tree height (DIR, 41.4%), DBH (2.8%), and crown surface area (1%). Applying the variation partitioning to the species separately we observed that the independent effect of crown surface area was much higher for P. sylvestris (22.4%) than for the other species (L. decidua 2.2%; P. abies 8%). Real tree height (DIR) showed a stronger independent effect on delta estimations in L. decidua (95.6%) than in other species (P. abies 73.3%; P. sylvestris 57.5%).

4. Discussion

Field-based tree height measurements are a fundamental data source for forest inventories and are generally very time consuming. Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) is an interesting remote sensing technique that can be used to make fieldworks more efficient. When using field measurements as reference data for the evaluation of remote sensing tree height data the question of “what is the truth” is still open. We used one hundred felled trees as ground truth to investigate the impact of species composition on the accuracy of individual tree height estimates. Our results show that tree height measurements performed with Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) approximated to real heights (DIR) of felled trees. Interestingly, ALS estimates were closer to DIR ones than those obtained through traditional field-based surveys (IND). This was also highlighted by the lower error (RMSE) observed when the DIR measurement was used as ground truth. Considering the species separately, L. decidua showed the smaller mean difference in absolute values (0.95 m) between remote sensing (ALS) and direct field (DIR) data, followed by P. abies and P. sylvestris (1.13 and 1.04, respectively). P. abies was the only species showing a smaller difference in tree height between ALS and IND (0.80 m) than between ALS and DIR (1.13 m). This was probably because P. abies has a simple and dense canopy that is easier to collimate from the ground.
Tree height obtained through direct measurements on felled trees (DIR) emerged as being an important factor influencing the accuracy of remote and field surveys. Our regression linear models showed that ALS-derived height estimations of tall trees were underestimated while small ones were overestimated by ALS technique. The underestimation of tall trees by ALS has been commonly found in several studies and relates to the missing of points corresponding to the highest point of the crown [30]. Underestimation of tree height using small-footprint laser scanner systems (ALS) was documented early in the 1980s [31]. The main factors affecting underestimation of tree heights are as follows: density and coverage of laser pulses; the algorithm used to obtain DTM and CHM; pulse penetration into the canopy; amount and height of understory vegetation; tree shape and species [32]. The overestimation by ALS of small trees is an artefact of receiving pulses from nearby taller trees [33], but other causes can be related to DTM errors related to filtering and interpolation methods. The architecture of the crown can also determine an overestimation, especially for those species without a strong monopodial shape, such as broadleaves and some pine species (e.g., P. sylvestris). This fact had an important influence on the observed differences between species. Pinus trees were smaller than the other two species and this is likely an explanation for the height overestimation by ALS.
From a variation partitioning analysis, it was revealed that species attribute was more important than tree height and DBH for influencing the difference between ALS and DIR measurements; this was probably because our dataset was composed of small Pinus, intermediate Picea, and tall Larix trees. However, from the variation partitioning analysis applied to each species we observed that, for Pinus, crown surface area was an important variable for influencing the difference between ALS and DIR measurements; this was probably due to the complex crown shape of this species. Instead, Larix and Picea have a simpler pyramid-shape crown architecture [34]; this can explain why real height (DIR) become the most important factor for influencing the difference between ALS and DIR measurements. Similar differences between crown architecture of pines and fir-spruce species were found by other authors [2,10,35] and recently the importance of tree crown architecture for wood volume estimation has been outlined [36].
In spite of the small size of the sample, we observed that tree height estimation by laser scanner is closer to real tree heights (DIR) than traditional field-based survey. This was particularly valid for tall trees having regular crowns, and this has important implications for the use of ALS techniques in forest inventories [9,37]. We are aware that our results cannot be generalized to ALS surveys with low pulses density (<5/m2) and with view angles far from zero (nadir). Pulse density is a limit for singletree height estimation [32], but is not a constraint at the plot scale until pulse densities drop below 1 pulse/m2 [38]. From our experiment on thinned data we observed that pulse density had a strong influence on the number of detected trees. With a density of 1 pulse/m2 only 56% of trees were detected and this percentage was even lower (38%) for Pinus trees. This is probably because the point cloud thinning affected shorter trees with complex crown shape. Regarding the influence of point density on the accuracy of tree height estimation we obtained higher RMSE (1.41 m) with low densities (1 pulse/m2), but this value is not too far from those indicated in the literature for the same species with 10 pulses/m2 (RMSE = 0.98 m) and 4 pulses/m2 (RMSE = 0.63 m) [10,39].
The source of error on tree height field measurement can be related to the instrument used, to the skills and experience of surveyor, and to the tree and stand characteristics [40]. There are only a few papers that compare tree height measurements obtained by handled instruments with actual height obtained by direct measurement [41], but as far as we know there are none comparing LiDAR derived height with direct measurements. Field-based surveying methods can influence the accuracy of tree height estimation and usually are affected by lack of precision [42,43]. The model of handheld laser rangefinder (e.g., Impulse or Truepulse) affects the quality of compass measurements [44,45]. In our study, we used a Truepulse 360B device that is affected by a length measurement error of 30 cm and azimuth error of 3 degrees [45]. When using Suunto hypsometers the standard error in tree height estimation has proven to be between 0.4 and 0.8 m [46,47]. Moreover, field crew judgement and precision is another important factor affecting the accuracy of field-based surveys with handheld laser rangefinders [48]. The use of tacheometer, total station, and accurate GPS receiver can significantly improve field measurements, and thus the accuracy assessment of ALS data [47,49,50]. Other authors have found that field methods were more accurate than LiDAR data [2,41], but point density was almost half of the present study. In any case, the authors agreed in considering that the discrepancy in height accuracy was greatly compensated by the higher cost efficiencies and wider coverage guaranteed by LiDAR. Further case study, species, instruments, and field crew should be tested in order to have a clearer idea of the issue.

5. Conclusions

Our study demonstrates that direct field measurements on felled trees improve the assessment of small-footprint airborne laser scanner (ALS) estimation of tree heights. Adopting direct measurements as ground truth for remote sensing tree height estimation we obtained a reduction in the magnitude of errors (RMSE). The proposed method of using felled trees as ground control points is time consuming and expensive, but highlights the fact that traditional field-based surveys methods are estimations in turn. ALS can be considered reliable for height estimation of dominant trees, but its accuracy with shorter trees having irregular canopy is lower. A solution could be to improve the number of GCPs and the number of repeated field-based measurements on dominated trees to obtain a more reliable assessment of remote sensing data. The use of felled trees as direct field measurements in forest inventory obviously cannot be adopted as a routine approach. Traditional field-based measurements should still be considered an essential survey methodology, but an increased awareness of their accuracy, especially when used for the validation of other indirect measurements such as RS methods, should be promoted.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the European Commission (project Alpine Space 2-3-2-FR NEWFOR) within the European Territorial Cooperation program “Alpine Space” and partially funded by the Italian Ministry of University and Research (project PRIN 2012, grant no. 2012EWEY 2S). The authors would like to thank the NEWFOR partners, the project observer Consorzio Forestale Alta Valle di Susa (CFAVS) for logistic support and providing the forest inventory data, and three anonymous reviewers that contributed substantially to enhance the quality of the manuscript.

Author Contributions

E.S.: paper writing; data quality check; preparation of results. F.M., A.D., and L.C.: data collection; logistics; paper revision. A.V. and E.L.: data analysis; paper revision. R.M.: supervision. M.G.: paper writing; supervision.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Koch, B.; Heyder, U.; Weinacker, H. Detection of individual tree crowns in airborne LiDAR data. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2006, 72, 357–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Andersen, H.E.; Reutebuch, S.E.; McGaughey, R.J. A rigorous assessment of tree height measurements obtained using airborne LiDAR and conventional field methods. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2006, 32, 355–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fieber, K.D.; Davenport, I.J.; Tanase, M.A.; Ferryman, J.M.; Gurney, R.J.; Becerra, V.M.; Walker, J.P.; Hacker, J.M. Validation of Canopy Height Profile methodology for small-footprint full-waveform airborne LiDAR data in a discontinuous canopy environment. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2015, 104, 144–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Næsset, E. Predicting forest stand characteristics with airborne scanning laser using a practical two-stage procedure and field data. Remote Sen. Environ. 2002, 80, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nilsson, M. Estimation of tree heights and stand volume using an airborne LiDAR system. Remote Sen. Environ. 1996, 56, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Næsset, E. Estimating timber volume of forest stands using airborne laser scanner data. Remote Sens. Environ. 1997, 61, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Magnussen, S.; Boudewyn, P. Derivations of stand heights from airborne laser scanner data with canopy-based quantile estimators. Can. J. For. Res. 1998, 28, 1016–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lefsky, M.A.; Cohen, W.B.; Acker, S.A.; Parker, G.G.; Spies, T.A.; Harding, D. LiDAR remote sensing of the canopy structure and biophysical properties of Douglas-fir western hemlock forests. Remote Sens. Environ. 1999, 70, 339–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tompalski, P.; Coops, N.C.; White, J.C.; Wulder, M.A. Simulating the impacts of error in species and height upon tree volume derived from airborne laser scanning data. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 327, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Persson, A.; Holmgren, J.; Söderman, U. Detecting and measuring individual trees using an airborne laser scanner. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2002, 68, 925–932. [Google Scholar]
  11. Garbarino, M.; Lingua, E.; Weisberg, P.J.; Bottero, A.; Meloni, F.; Motta, R. Land-use history and topographic gradients as driving factors of subalpine Larix decidua forests. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 805–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Berger, F.; Dupire, S.; Monnet, J.-M.; Hainzer, E.; Stoehr, D.; Nemestóthy, N.; Sotier, B.; Lerch, T.; Maier, B.; Malin, H.; et al. Forest Logistic Planning Strategies. Good Practices for the Alpine Forests; TESAF e-Book: Padova, Italy, 2014; p. 111. [Google Scholar]
  13. Field-Map. IFER: Jilove, Czech Republic. Available online: http://www.fieldmap.cz (accessed on 25 May 2015).
  14. GeoXM 2005. Trimble Inc.: Sunnyvale, CA, USA. Available online: http://investor.trimble.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=190963 (accessed on 15 July 2014).
  15. TruPulse. Laser Technology Inc.: Centennial, CO, USA. Available online: http://www.lasertech.com/TruPulse-Laser-Rangefinder.aspx (accessed on 25 May 2015).
  16. ARMOR. Technologies Inc.: Arlington, VA, USA. Available online: http://www.drs.com/products-and-services/armor-customer-support/DRS (accessed on 3 July 2015).
  17. Terrascan. Terrasolid LTD.: Helsinki, Finland. Available online: http://www.terrasolid.com/products/terrascanpage.php (accessed on 14 March 2014).
  18. LasTools. GmbH: Gilching, Germany. Available online: http://lastools.org/download/LAStools.ziprapidlasso (accessed on 10 February 2014).
  19. Vauhkonen, J.; Tokola, T.; Maltamo, M.; Packalén, P. Effects of pulse density on predicting characteristics of individual trees of Scandinavian commercial species using alpha shape metrics based on airborne laser scanning data. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2008, 34, S441–S459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hansen, E.H.; Gobakken, T.; Næsset, E. Effects of pulse density on digital terrain models and canopy metrics using airborne laser scanning in a tropical forest. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 8453–8468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Kandare, K.; Orka, H.O.; Chan, J.C.-W.; Dalponte, M. Effects of forest structure and airborne laser scanning point cloud density on 3D delineation of individual tree crowns. Eur. J. Remote Sens. 2016, 49, 337–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hyyppä, H.J.; Hyyppä, J.M. Effects of stand size on the accuracy of remote sensing based forest inventory. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2001, 39, 2613–2621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sambugaro, M.; Colpi, C.; Marzano, R.; Pellegrini, M.; Pirotti, F.; Lingua, E. Utilizzo Del Telerilevamento Per l’Analisi Della Biodiversità Strutturale: Il Caso Studio Della Riserva Forestale di Clöise (Asiago, VI). In Proceedings of the 17th Conferenza Nazionale ASITA, Riva del Garda, Italy, 5–7 November 2013; pp. 1171–1178.
  24. St-Onge, B. Estimating individual tree heights of the boreal forest using airborne laser altimetry and digital videography. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 1999, 32, 179–184. [Google Scholar]
  25. ArcGIS. ESRI: Redlands, CA, USA. Available online: http://www.esri.com/arcgis/products/arcgis-pro/Overview (accessed on 25 June 2015).
  26. Eysn, L.; Hollaus, M.; Lindberg, E.; Berger, F.; Monnet, J.-M.; Dalponte, M.; Kobal, M.; Pellegrini, M.; Lingua, E.; Mongus, D.; Pfeifer, N. A benchmark of LiDAR-based single tree detection methods using heterogeneous forest data from the Alpine space. Forests 2015, 6, 1721–1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Chevan, A.; Sutherland, M. Hierarchical partitioning. Am. Stat. 1991, 45, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Walsh, C.; Mac Nally, R. Hier.Part: Hierarchical Partitioning. R Package Version 1.0–4. Available online: https://www.CRAN.R-project.org/package=hier.part (accessed on 20 May 2013).
  29. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Found. Stat. Comput.: Vienna, Austria, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  30. Wing, M.G.; Eklund, A.; Sessions, J. Applying LiDAR technology for tree measurements in burned landscapes. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2010, 19, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nelson, R.; Krabill, W.; Maclean, G. Estimating forest biomass and volume using airborne laser data. Remote Sens. Environ. 1988, 24, 247–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hyyppä, J.M.; Hyyppä, H.J.; Leckie, D.; Gougeon, F.; Yu, X.; Maltamo, M. Review of methods of small-footprint airborne laser scanning for extracting forest inventory data in boreal forests. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 2008, 29, 1339–1366. [Google Scholar]
  33. Farid, A.; Goodrich, D.C.; Sorooshian, S. Using airborne LiDAR to discern age classes of cottonwood trees in a riparian area. West. J. Appl. For. 2006, 21, 149–158. [Google Scholar]
  34. Korpela, I.; Ørka, H.O.; Maltamo, M.; Tokola, T.; Hyyppä, J. Tree species classification using airborne LiDAR—Effects of stand and tree parameters, downsizing of training set, intensity normalization, and sensor type. Silva Fenn. 2010, 44, 319–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yu, X.; Hyyppä, J.; Hyyppä, H.; Maltamo, M. Effects of flight altitude on tree height estimation using airborne laser scanning. In Proceedings of the International Conference NATSCAN Laser-Scanners for Forest and Landscape Assessment—Instruments, Processing Methods and Applications, Freiburg, Germany, 3–6 October 2004; pp. 96–101.
  36. Hess, C.; Bienert, A.; Härdtle, W.; Von Oheimb, G. Does Tree Architectural Complexity Influence the Accuracy of Wood Volume Estimates of Single Young Trees by Terrestrial Laser Scanning? Forests 2015, 6, 3847–3867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chave, J.; Andalo, C.; Brown, S.; Cairns, M.A.; Chambers, J.Q.; Eamus, D.; Fölster, H.; Fromard, F.; Higuchi, N.; Kira, T.; et al. Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 2005, 145, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Jakubowski, M.K.; Guo, Q.; Kelly, M. Tradeoffs between LiDAR pulse density and forest measurement accuracy. Remote Sens. Environ. 2013, 130, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hyyppä, J.M.; Inkinen, M. Detecting and estimating attributes for single trees using laser scanner. Photogramm. J. Finl. 1999, 16, 27–42. [Google Scholar]
  40. Gaudin, S.; Richard, J.B. Comparaison des dendrometres VertexIII et TruPulse 200B pour la mesure de la hauteur totale des arbres. Rev. For. Fr. 2014, 66, 163–181. [Google Scholar]
  41. Larjavaara, M.; Muller-Landau, H.C. Measuring tree height: A quantitative comparison of two common field methods in a moist tropical forest. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2013, 4, 793–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nelson, R.; Parker, G.; Hom, M. A portable airborne laser system for forest inventory. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2003, 69, 267–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. West, P.W. Tree and Forest Measurement, 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2009; p. 191. [Google Scholar]
  44. Brach, M.; Bielak, K.; Drozdowski, S. Measurements accuracy of selected laser rangefinders in the forest environment. Sylwan 2013, 157, 671–677. [Google Scholar]
  45. Tomaštik, J.; Tunák, D. Compass measurement—Still a suitable surveying method in specific conditions. Geod. Cartogr. 2015, 41, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lindgren, O. A Study of Circular Plot Sampling of Swedish Forest Compartments; Swedish University of Agriculture Science: Umea, Sweden, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  47. Holmgren, J.; Nilsson, M.; Olsson, H. Estimation of tree height and stem volume on plots using airborne laser scanning. For. Sci. 2003, 49, 419–428. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ferrarese, J.A. Characterizing Crown Structure of Three Interior Northwest Conifer Species Using Terrestrial Laser Scanning; University of Montana: Missoula, MT, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  49. Maltamo, M.; Mustonen, K.; Hyyppä, J.; Pitkänen, J.; Yu, X. The accuracy of estimating individual tree variables with airborne laser scanning in a boreal nature reserve. Can. J. For. Res. 2004, 34, 1791–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Salas, C.; Ene, L.; Gregoire, T.G.; Næsset, E.; Gobakken, T. Modelling tree diameter from airborne laser scanning derived variables: A comparison of spatial statistical models. Remote Sens. Environ. 2010, 114, 1277–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 08 00007 g001 550
Figure 1. Box plots of tree heights distribution as measured by three survey methods (DIR = field direct measurement of felled trees; IND = traditional field-based; ALS = Airborne Laser Scanning) of the whole dataset and considering the species. ALS data are presented divided by pulse densities (10, 5, 1 points/m2) obtained through point cloud thinning.
Figure 1. Box plots of tree heights distribution as measured by three survey methods (DIR = field direct measurement of felled trees; IND = traditional field-based; ALS = Airborne Laser Scanning) of the whole dataset and considering the species. ALS data are presented divided by pulse densities (10, 5, 1 points/m2) obtained through point cloud thinning.
Forests 08 00007 g001
Forests 08 00007 g002 550
Figure 2. Regression analysis between tree height derived by airborne laser scanner data (ALS = ALS10) and tree height derived from indirect field-based measurement (IND), considering the whole dataset (All) and the three species separately. Each dot corresponds to a single tree (blue square = Larix; green triangle = Picea; red circle = Pinus).
Figure 2. Regression analysis between tree height derived by airborne laser scanner data (ALS = ALS10) and tree height derived from indirect field-based measurement (IND), considering the whole dataset (All) and the three species separately. Each dot corresponds to a single tree (blue square = Larix; green triangle = Picea; red circle = Pinus).
Forests 08 00007 g002
Forests 08 00007 g003 550
Figure 3. Regression analysis between (a) tree heights derived by airborne laser scanner data (ALS = ALS10) and tree heights derived from direct field-based measurement (DIR); (b) tree heights derived from indirect field-based measurement (IND) and DIR, considering the whole dataset (All) and the three species separately. Each dot corresponds to a single tree (blue square = Larix; green triangle = Picea; red circle = Pinus).
Figure 3. Regression analysis between (a) tree heights derived by airborne laser scanner data (ALS = ALS10) and tree heights derived from direct field-based measurement (DIR); (b) tree heights derived from indirect field-based measurement (IND) and DIR, considering the whole dataset (All) and the three species separately. Each dot corresponds to a single tree (blue square = Larix; green triangle = Picea; red circle = Pinus).
Forests 08 00007 g003
Table
Table 1. Site characteristics, stand structure descriptors, and species composition of the four permanent plots as a whole and considering only the felled trees. Tree heights were obtained from DIR measurement, instead diameter at breast height (DBH), basal area (BA), bole height (Crown H), and crown area (Crown A) were obtained from IND survey method.
Table 1. Site characteristics, stand structure descriptors, and species composition of the four permanent plots as a whole and considering only the felled trees. Tree heights were obtained from DIR measurement, instead diameter at breast height (DBH), basal area (BA), bole height (Crown H), and crown area (Crown A) were obtained from IND survey method.
Whole PlotPlot 1Plot 2Plot 3Plot 4
Slope (°)11212828
Elevation (m a.s.l.)1588136513641407
Tree Density (tree/ha)477772716883
BA (m2/ha)40.4037.7742.7937.58
Vertical Structuresingle layeredmultilayeredmultilayeredmultilayered
Larix decidua (BA %)99201144
Picea abies (BA %)1654226
Pinus sylvestris (BA %)09930
Other Species (BA %)06380
Felled trees
N47181619
Tree Height Mean (m)28.6119.6418.6917.17
Tree Height Min (m)19.8014.0013.7012.00
Tree Height Max (m)34.9025.5025.5023.00
Tree Height SD (m)3.182.933.393.10
DBH (cm)34.0428.5630.7128.68
BA (m2/ha)4.841.231.401.30
Crown H (m)18.409.0111.326.94
Crown A (m2)8.8711.8413.0610.13
Table
Table 2. Total number (N) and percent value of detected trees by ALS from the original dataset of felled trees. ALS data are presented divided by pulse densities (10, 5, 1 points/m2) obtained through point cloud thinning.
Table 2. Total number (N) and percent value of detected trees by ALS from the original dataset of felled trees. ALS data are presented divided by pulse densities (10, 5, 1 points/m2) obtained through point cloud thinning.
SpeciesALS10ALS5ALS1
N%N%N%
All10010073735656
L. decidua4810035732756
P. abies3110027872168
P. sylvestris211001152838
Table
Table 3. Average (Mean) and standard deviation (SD) values of tree heights measured by three estimation methods: field direct (DIR), indirect (IND), and Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) for the whole dataset (All) and divided by species. ALS data are presented divided by pulse densities (10, 5, 1 points/m2) obtained through point cloud thinning. N indicates the total of detected trees by ALS from the original dataset of felled trees.
Table 3. Average (Mean) and standard deviation (SD) values of tree heights measured by three estimation methods: field direct (DIR), indirect (IND), and Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) for the whole dataset (All) and divided by species. ALS data are presented divided by pulse densities (10, 5, 1 points/m2) obtained through point cloud thinning. N indicates the total of detected trees by ALS from the original dataset of felled trees.
SpeciesMetricDIRINDALS10ALS5ALS1
AllN1001001007356
Mean (m)23.5123.4423.5123.7724.14
SD (m)6.105.985.965.815.23
L. deciduaN4848483527
Mean (m)28.9928.5628.9628.9828.94
SD (m)2.823.442.772.801.88
P. abiesN3131312721
Mean (m)19.9720.2619.6419.8420.52
SD (m)2.973.052.692.922.28
P. sylvestrisN212121118
Mean (m)16.2116.4116.7916.8617.40
SD (m)2.222.152.292.342.55
Table
Table 4. Mean difference (MD) and Root mean square error (RMSE) between field indirect (IND) and ALS data for the whole dataset (All) and divided by species. ALS data are presented divided by pulse densities (10, 5, 1 points/m2) obtained through point cloud thinning.
Table 4. Mean difference (MD) and Root mean square error (RMSE) between field indirect (IND) and ALS data for the whole dataset (All) and divided by species. ALS data are presented divided by pulse densities (10, 5, 1 points/m2) obtained through point cloud thinning.
SpeciesIND vs. ALS10IND vs. ALS5IND vs. ALS
MDRMSEMDRMSEMDRMSE
All0.081.00−0.311.16−0.101.41
L. decidua0.391.42−0.131.51−0.221.18
P. abies−0.620.62−0.831.42−0.431.00
P. sylvestris0.381.280.391.151.200.90
Table
Table 5. Mean difference (MD) and Root mean square error (RMSE) between field direct (DIR) and ALS data for the whole dataset (All) and divided by species. ALS data are presented divided by pulse densities (10, 5, 1 points/m2) obtained through point cloud thinning.
Table 5. Mean difference (MD) and Root mean square error (RMSE) between field direct (DIR) and ALS data for the whole dataset (All) and divided by species. ALS data are presented divided by pulse densities (10, 5, 1 points/m2) obtained through point cloud thinning.
SpeciesDIR vs. ALS10DIR vs. ALS5DIR vs. ALS1
MDRMSEMDRMSEMDRMSE
All0.000.76−0.480.97−0.431.11
L. decidua−0.031.21−0.631.45−1.061.18
P. abies−0.331.21−0.741.83−0.171.28
P. sylvestris0.581.250.601.241.051.26

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sibona, E.; Vitali, A.; Meloni, F.; Caffo, L.; Dotta, A.; Lingua, E.; Motta, R.; Garbarino, M. Direct Measurement of Tree Height Provides Different Results on the Assessment of LiDAR Accuracy. Forests 2017, 8, 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8010007

AMA Style

Sibona E, Vitali A, Meloni F, Caffo L, Dotta A, Lingua E, Motta R, Garbarino M. Direct Measurement of Tree Height Provides Different Results on the Assessment of LiDAR Accuracy. Forests. 2017; 8(1):7. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8010007

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sibona, Emanuele, Alessandro Vitali, Fabio Meloni, Lucia Caffo, Alberto Dotta, Emanuele Lingua, Renzo Motta, and Matteo Garbarino. 2017. "Direct Measurement of Tree Height Provides Different Results on the Assessment of LiDAR Accuracy" Forests 8, no. 1: 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8010007

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop