4.7 Article

An Assessment of High-Density UAV Point Clouds for the Measurement of Young Forestry Trials

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 12, 期 24, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs12244039

关键词

UAV; forestry trials; ULS; structure-from-motion; lidar; small trees; tree height

资金

  1. Scion's Strategic Science Investment Funding (SSIF)
  2. Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE)
  3. Forest Growers Levy Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The measurement of forestry trials is a costly and time-consuming process. Over the past few years, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have provided some significant developments that could improve cost and time efficiencies. However, little research has examined the accuracies of these technologies for measuring young trees. This study compared the data captured by a UAV laser scanning system (ULS), and UAV structure from motion photogrammetry (SfM), with traditional field-measured heights in a series of forestry trials in the central North Island of New Zealand. Data were captured from UAVs, and then processed into point clouds, from which heights were derived and compared to field measurements. The results show that predictions from both ULS and SfM were very strongly correlated to tree heights (R-2 = 0.99, RMSE = 5.91%, and R-2 = 0.94, RMSE = 18.5%, respectively) but that the height underprediction was markedly lower for ULS than SfM (Mean Bias Error = 0.05 vs. 0.38 m). Integration of a ULS DTM to the SfM made a minor improvement in precision (R-2 = 0.95, RMSE = 16.5%). Through plotting error against tree height, we identified a minimum threshold of 1 m, under which the accuracy of height measurements using ULS and SfM significantly declines. Our results show that SfM and ULS data collected from UAV remote sensing can be used to accurately measure height in young forestry trials. It is hoped that this study will give foresters and tree breeders the confidence to start to operationalise this technology for monitoring trials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据