Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 284

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 141 of the 141 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

UAV-Based Forest Health Monitoring: A Systematic Review

Open access
Ecke, Simon, Dempewolf, Jan, Frey, Julian, Schwaller, Andreas, Endres, Ewald, Klemmt, Hans-Joachim, Tiede, Dirk, Seifert, Thomas·2022·Remote Sensing

Abstract

In recent years, technological advances have led to the increasing use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for forestry applications. One emerging field for drone application is forest health monitoring (FHM). Common approaches for FHM involve small-scale resource-extensive fieldwork combined with traditional remote sensing platforms. However, the highly dynamic nature of forests requires timely and repetitive data acquisition, often at very high spatial resolution, where conventional remote sensing techniques reach the limits of feasibility. UAVs have shown that they can meet the demands of flexible operation and high spatial resolution. This is also reflected in a rapidly growing number of publications using drones to study forest health. Only a few reviews exist which do not cover the whole research history of UAV-based FHM. Since a comprehensive review is becoming critical to identify research gaps, trends, and drawbacks, we offer a systematic analysis of 99 papers covering the last ten years of research related to UAV-based monitoring of forests threatened by biotic and abiotic stressors. Advances in drone technology are being rapidly adopted and put into practice, further improving the economical use of UAVs. Despite the many advantages of UAVs, such as their flexibility, relatively low costs, and the possibility to fly below cloud cover, we also identified some shortcomings: (1) multitemporal and long-term monitoring of forests is clearly underrepresented; (2) the rare use of hyperspectral and LiDAR sensors must drastically increase; (3) complementary data from other RS sources are not sufficiently being exploited; (4) a lack of standardized workflows poses a problem to ensure data uniformity; (5) complex machine learning algorithms and workflows obscure interpretability and hinders widespread adoption; (6) the data pipeline from acquisition to final analysis often relies on commercial software at the expense of open-source tools.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/rs14133205

Cites

141 of 141 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 141 references

Cited by

See all 284

Metadata

Authors
Ecke, S., Dempewolf, J., Frey, J., Schwaller, A., Endres, E., Klemmt, H.-J., Tiede, D., & Seifert, T.
Venue
Remote Sensing
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-07-04
Volume
14
Issue
13
Pages
3205
ISSN
2072-4292 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4283822762
Cited by
284
References
141
FWCI
5.60
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: UAV-Based Forest Health Monitoring: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/rs14133205
The paper
Ecke, S., Dempewolf, J., Frey, J., Schwaller, A., Endres, E., Klemmt, H.-J., Tiede, D., & Seifert, T. (2022). UAV-Based Forest Health Monitoring: A Systematic Review. Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14133205

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.