Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 331

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Combined high-density lidar and multispectral imagery for individual tree crown analysis

Leckie, Don, Gougeon, François, Hill, David, Quinn, Rick, Armstrong, Lynne, Shreenan, Roger·2003·Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing

Abstract

Lidar technology has reached a point where ground and forest canopy elevation models can be produced at high spatial resolution. Individual tree crown isolation and classification methods are developing rapidly for multispectral imagery. Analysis of multispectral imagery, however, does not readily provide tree height information and lidar data alone cannot provide species and health attributes. The combination of lidar and multispectral data at the individual tree level may provide a very useful forest inventory tool. A valley following approach to individual tree isolation was applied to both high resolution digital frame camera imagery and a canopy height model (CHM) created from high-density lidar data over a test site of even aged (55 years old) Douglas-fir plots of varying densities (300, 500, and 725 stems/ha) on the west coast of Canada. Tree height was determined from the laser data within the automated crown delineations. Automated tree isolations of the multispectral imagery achieved 80%‐90% good correspondence with the ground reference tree delineations based on ground data. However, for the more open plot there were serious commission errors (false trees isolated) mostly related to sunlit ground vegetation. These were successfully reduced by applying a height filter to the isolations based on the lidar data. Isolations from the lidar data produced good isolations with few commission errors but poorer crown outline delineations especially for the densest plot. There is a complimentarity in the two data sources that will help in tree isolation. Heights of the automated isolations were consistently underestimated versus ground reference trees with an average error of 1.3 m. Further work is needed to test and develop tools and capabilities, but there is an effective synergy of the two high resolution data sources for providing needed forest inventory information.

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 · 10.5589/m03-024

Cites

15 of 15 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 15 references

Cited by

See all 331

Metadata

Authors
Leckie, D., Gougeon, F., Hill, D., Quinn, R., Armstrong, L., & Shreenan, R.
Venue
Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing
Published
2003-10
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
633-649
ISSN
  • 0703-8992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1712-7971
OpenAlex
W2125899407
Cited by
331
References
15
FWCI
18.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Combined high-density lidar and multispectral imagery for individual tree crown analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5589/m03-024
The paper
Leckie, D., Gougeon, F., Hill, D., Quinn, R., Armstrong, L., & Shreenan, R. (2003). Combined high-density lidar and multispectral imagery for individual tree crown analysis. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.5589/m03-024

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.