Applying quantitative structure models to plot-based terrestrial laser data to assess dendrometric parameters in dense mixed forests

• Main Authors: Chiara Torresan, Ugo Chiavetta, Jan Hackenberg
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria 2018-05-01
• Series: Forest Systems
• Subjects: LiDAR; geometrical modeling metrics; wood volume; forest inventory, tree segmentation; CompuTree; SimpleTree
• Online Access: http://revistas.inia.es/index.php/fs/article/view/12658

Aim of study: To assess terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) accuracy in estimating biometrical forest parameters at plot-based level in order to replace manual survey for forest inventory purposes. Area of study: Monte Morello, Tuscany region, Italy Material and methods: In 14 plots (10 m radius) in dense Mediterranean mixed conifer forests, diameter at breast height (DBH) and height were measured in Summer 2016. Tree volume was computed using the second Italian National Forest Inventory (INFC II) equations. TLS data were acquired in the same plots and quantitative structure models (QSMs) were applied to TLS data to compute dendrometric parameters. Tree parameters measured in field survey, i.e. DBH, height, and computed volume, were compared to those resulting from TLS data processing. The effect of distance from the plot boundary in the accuracy of DBH, height and volume estimation from TLS data was tested. Main results: TLS-derived DBH showed a good correlation with the traditional forest inventory data (R2=0.98, RRMSE=7.81%), while tree height was less correlated with the traditional forest inventory data (R2=0.60, RRMSE=16.99%). Poor agreement was observed when comparing the volume from TLS data with volume estimated from the INFC II prediction equations. Research highlights: The study demonstrated that the application of QSM to plot-based terrestrial laser data generates errors in plots with high density of coniferous trees. A buffer zone of 5 m would help reduce the error of 35% and 42% respectively in height estimation for all trees and in volume estimation for broadleaved trees.