4.7 Article

Individual Tree Position Extraction and Structural Parameter Retrieval Based on Airborne LiDAR Data: Performance Evaluation and Comparison of Four Algorithms

Journal

REMOTE SENSING
Volume 12, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs12030571

Keywords

LiDAR; DEM; CHM; individual tree position; tree height; crown width

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41601368, 41861144026]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Information for individual trees (e.g., position, treetop, height, crown width, and crown edge) is beneficial for forest monitoring and management. Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data have been widely used to retrieve these individual tree parameters from different algorithms, with varying successes. In this study, we used an iterative Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) algorithm to separate ground and canopy points in airborne LiDAR data, and generated Digital Elevation Models (DEM) by Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) interpolation, thin spline interpolation, and trend surface interpolation, as well as by using the Kriging algorithm. The height of the point cloud was assigned to a Digital Surface Model (DSM), and a Canopy Height Model (CHM) was acquired. Then, four algorithms (point-cloud-based local maximum algorithm, CHM-based local maximum algorithm, watershed algorithm, and template-matching algorithm) were comparatively used to extract the structural parameters of individual trees. The results indicated that the two local maximum algorithms can effectively detect the treetop; the watershed algorithm can accurately extract individual tree height and determine the tree crown edge; and the template-matching algorithm works well to extract accurate crown width. This study provides a reference for the selection of algorithms in individual tree parameter inversion based on airborne LiDAR data and is of great significance for LiDAR-based forest monitoring and management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available