Moving to Automated Tree Inventory: Comparison of UAS-Derived Lidar and Photogrammetric Data with Manual Ground Estimates

Abstract

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) have advanced rapidly enabling low-cost capture of high-resolution images with cameras, from which three-dimensional photogrammetric point clouds can be derived. More recently UAS equipped with laser scanners, or lidar, have been employed to create similar 3D datasets. While airborne lidar (originally from conventional aircraft) has been used effectively in forest systems for many years, the ability to obtain important tree features such as height, diameter at breast height, and crown dimensions is now becoming feasible for individual trees at reasonable costs thanks to UAS lidar. Getting to individual tree resolution is crucial for detailed phenotyping and genetic analyses. This study evaluates the quality of three three-dimensional datasets from three sensors—two cameras of different quality and one lidar sensor—collected over a managed, closed-canopy pine stand with different planting densities. For reference, a ground-based timber cruise of the same pine stand is also collected. This study then conducted three straightforward experiments to determine the quality of the three sensors’ datasets for use in automated forest inventory: manual mensuration of the point clouds to (1) detect trees and (2) measure tree heights, and (3) automated individual tree detection. The results demonstrate that, while both photogrammetric and lidar data are well-suited for single-tree forest inventory, the photogrammetric data from the higher-quality camera is sufficient for individual tree detection and height determination, but that lidar data is best. The automated tree detection algorithm used in the study performed well with the lidar data, detecting 98% of the 2199 trees in the pine stand, but fell short of manual mensuration within the lidar point cloud, where 100% of the trees were detected. The manually-mensurated heights in the lidar dataset correlated with field measurements at r = 0.95 with a bias of −0.25 m, where the photogrammetric datasets were again less accurate and precise.