2009
DOI: 10.14358/pers.75.2.159
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison of Individual Tree and Forest Plot Height Derived from Lidar and InSAR

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Airborne LiDAR tends to slightly underestimate field-measured estimates in the case of dense forest stands because of its poor ability to penetrate the canopy and reach the forest floor. Also, tree height estimates may be underestimated because laser pulses are not always reflected from treetops, particularly for trees with smaller crown diameters or conically shaped crowns, whereby the laser pulse may detect the sides of the tree instead of the treetop [7,8]. One of the main advantages of airborne laser scanning (ALS) is that it covers large areas, but costs can be relatively high and lower point densities tend to limit tree detection accuracy, according to [9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Airborne LiDAR tends to slightly underestimate field-measured estimates in the case of dense forest stands because of its poor ability to penetrate the canopy and reach the forest floor. Also, tree height estimates may be underestimated because laser pulses are not always reflected from treetops, particularly for trees with smaller crown diameters or conically shaped crowns, whereby the laser pulse may detect the sides of the tree instead of the treetop [7,8]. One of the main advantages of airborne laser scanning (ALS) is that it covers large areas, but costs can be relatively high and lower point densities tend to limit tree detection accuracy, according to [9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the modern laser scanners with a sufficiently wide beam, either terrestrials or installed on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) (for example Riegl Vux-1), appear to be very promising. To evaluate DBH, [7] implemented a circle approximation and concluded that it estimated DBH capably if there were a sufficient number of surface laser points, but DBH estimates were smaller with too few data points. Similarly, [15] estimated DBH efficiently using a circle-fitting algorithm; they concluded that the use of TLS could be fraught with errors if there were an inadequate number of laser points due to occlusion from other stems.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, small footprint discrete return airborne LiDAR tend to slightly underestimate field measured tree heights, as the laser pulses are not always reflected from treetops. For trees with smaller crown widths or conically shaped crowns, there are chances for the laser pulse to hit the sides of the tree instead of the treetop [10,11]. Airborne LiDAR fails to capture the complete vertical distribution of the canopy [5].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A similar study explored LiDAR-radar synergy for predicting aboveground biomass, and found only negligible improvement by including radar [117]. LiDAR has also been found to be superior to radar for accurately detecting the height of individual trees and forest plots [118]. However, others argue that because LiDAR and radar sensitivities differ so markedly at fine scales, LiDAR-radar comparisons are only useful at broad scales [119].…”
Section: Sensor Integrationmentioning
confidence: 99%