The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Assessment of Forest Structure Using Two UAV Techniques: A Comparison of Airborne Laser Scanning and Structure from Motion (SfM) Point Clouds
Open accessAbstract
This study investigates the potential of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to measure and monitor structural properties of forests. Two remote sensing techniques, airborne laser scanning (ALS) and structure from motion (SfM) were tested to capture three-dimensional structural information from a small multi-rotor UAV platform. A case study is presented through the analysis of data collected from a 30 × 50 m plot in a dry sclerophyll eucalypt forest with a spatially varying canopy cover. The study provides an insight into the capabilities of both technologies for assessing absolute terrain height, the horizontal and vertical distribution of forest canopy elements, and information related to individual trees. Results indicate that both techniques are capable of providing information that can be used to describe the terrain surface and canopy properties in areas of relatively low canopy closure. However, the SfM photogrammetric technique underperformed ALS in capturing the terrain surface under increasingly denser canopy cover, resulting in point density of less than 1 ground point per m2 and mean difference from ALS terrain surface of 0.12 m. This shortcoming caused errors that were propagated into the estimation of canopy properties, including the individual tree height (root mean square error of 0.92 m for ALS and 1.30 m for SfM). Differences were also seen in the estimates of canopy cover derived from the SfM (50%) and ALS (63%) pointclouds. Although ALS is capable of providing more accurate estimates of the vertical structure of forests across the larger range of canopy densities found in this study, SfM was still found to be an adequate low-cost alternative for surveying of forest stands.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Drones for Conservation in Protected Areas: Present and Future
Jiménez López, J., & Mulero-Pázmány, M. (2019) · Drones · doi:10.3390/drones3010010 · Cited by 300
UAV-Based Forest Health Monitoring: A Systematic Review
Ecke, S., Dempewolf, J., Frey, J., Schwaller, A., Endres, E., Klemmt, H.-J., Tiede, D., & Seifert, T. (2022) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs14133205 · Cited by 284
Inzerillo, L., Di Mino, G., & Roberts, R. (2018) · Automation in Construction · doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2018.10.010 · Cited by 171
Nunes, J. P., Doerr, S. H., Sheridan, G., Neris, J., Santín, C., Emelko, M. B., Silins, U., Robichaud, P. R., Elliot, W. J., & Keizer, J. (2018) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.11434 · Cited by 97
Cattle vaccination records question the impact of recent zero-deforestation agreements in the Amazon
Klingler, M., Richards, P. D., & Ossner, R. (2018) · Regional Environmental Change · doi:10.1007/s10113-017-1234-1 · Cited by 52
Metadata
- Authors
- Wallace, L., Lucieer, A., Malenovský, Z., Turner, D., & Vopěnka, P.
- Venue
- Forests
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2016-03-07
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 62
- ISSN
- 1999-4907 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2296685749
- Cited by
- 700
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 51.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessment of Forest Structure Using Two UAV Techniques: A Comparison of Airborne Laser Scanning and Structure from Motion (SfM) Point Clouds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/f7030062
- The paper
- Wallace, L., Lucieer, A., Malenovský, Z., Turner, D., & Vopěnka, P. (2016). Assessment of Forest Structure Using Two UAV Techniques: A Comparison of Airborne Laser Scanning and Structure from Motion (SfM) Point Clouds. Forests. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7030062
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.