Retrieval of Forest Structural Parameters from Terrestrial Laser Scanning: A Romanian Case Study

• Published in: Forests 2020-04, Vol.11 (4), p.392
• Main Authors: Pascu, Ionuț-Silviu, Dobre, Alexandru-Claudiu, Badea, Ovidiu, Tanase, Mihai Andrei
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: biophysical parameters; Compression; Compression ratio; Correlation analysis; Correlation coefficient; Correlation coefficients; Diameters; Ecosystems; Forests; Laser applications; Lasers; multiple scans; Parameters; Remote sensing; single scan; Software; Terrestrial environments; TLS; Tolerances; Trees
• ISSN: 1999-4907; 1999-4907
• DOI: 10.3390/f11040392

Research Highlights: The present study case investigates the differences occurring when tree’s biophysical parameters are extracted through single and multiple scans. Scan sessions covered mountainous and hill regions of the Carpathian forests. Background and Objectives: We focused on analyzing stems, as a function of diameter at breast height (DBH) and the total height (H), at sample plot level for natural forests, with the purpose of assessing the potential for transitioning available methodology to field work in Romania. Materials and Methods: We performed single and multiple scans using a FARO Focus 3D X130 phase shift terrestrial laser scanner at 122 kpts and 0.3:0.15 mm noise compression ratio, resulting in an average point density of 6pts at 10m. The point cloud we obtained underpinned the DBH and heights analysis. In order to reach values similar to those measured in the field, we used both the original and the segmented point clouds, postprocessed in subsamples of different radii. Results: Pearson’s correlation coefficient above 0.8 for diameters showed high correlation with the field measurements. Diameter averages displayed differences within tolerances (0.02 m) for 10 out of 12 plots. Height analysis led to poorer results. For both acquisition methods, the values of the correlation coefficient peaked at 0.6. The initial hypothesis that trees positioned at a distance equivalent to their height can be measured more precise, was not valid; no increase in correlation strength was visible for either heights or diameters as the distance from scanner varied (r = 0.52). Conclusions: With regard to tree biophysical parameters extraction, the acquisition method has no major influence upon visible trees. We emphasize the term “visible”, as an increase in the number of acquisitions led to an increased number of detected trees (16% in old stands and 29% in young stands).