Assessing Precision in Conventional Field Measurements of Individual Tree Attributes
<p>Variation in forest density (Vegetation ratio) and height (Mean canopy height) in the Evo study area. Black dots represent all possible field plots and the red dots describe the 120 field sample plots that were selected.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Boxplots demonstrating the variation range of the standard deviation (std) of tree dbh<sub>obs</sub> (mean of cross measurements) and height measurements from the sample trees in cm and m, respectively. The standard deviations are presented for all the sample trees as well as separately for the tree species. In the figure, the bottom and the top of the box represent the first and third quartiles and the band inside the box is the median. The ends of the whiskers are within 1.5 interquartile of the lower and upper quartiles. The circles represent outliers.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Histograms describing the frequency of largest difference among the sample tree measurements. On left: within the dbh<sub>obs</sub> (mean of cross measurements) measurements from the same tree. On right: within the tree height measurements from the same tree.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Boxplot describing the standard deviations (std) of sample tree dbh (diameter-at-breast-height) measurements with two different methods. On left, the standard deviation is a result of dbh values acquired using cross-measurements (i.e., dbh<sub>obs</sub>), whereas on right, only one dbh measurement per mensurationist was used.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Standard deviation of tree dbh (diameter at the breast height) and tree h (height) measurements represented as the function of dbh and h of the sample trees.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Workflow for Sampling of the Trees to Be Measured
2.2.1. Sample Plot Measurements
2.2.2. Sample Trees
2.3. Evaluation of the Variance in the Field Measurements
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Husch, B.; Beers, T.; Kershaw, J., Jr. Forest Mensuration, 4th ed.; John willey & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Van Laar, A.; Akca, A. Forest Mensuration; Cuvillier Verlag: Goettingen, Germany, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Avery, T.E.; Burkhart, H.E. Forest Measurements; McGraw-Hill Cop.: Boston, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, N.A.; Wynne, R.H.; Schmoldt, D.L. A review of past research on dendrometers. For. Sci. 2000, 46, 570–576. [Google Scholar]
- Kellogg, R.M.; Barber, F.J. Stem eccentricity in coastal western Hemlock. Can. J. For. Res. 1981, 11, 715–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matérn, B. On the Shape of the Cross-Section of a Tree Stem. An Empirical Study of the Geometry of Mensurational Methods; Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet: Umea, Sweden, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Williamson, R.L. Out-of-roundness in douglas-fir stems. For. Sci. 1975, 21, 365–370. [Google Scholar]
- Binot, J.-M.; Pothier, D.; Lebel, J. Comparison of relative accuracy and time requirement between the caliper, the diameter tape and an electronic tree measuring fork. For. Chron. 1995, 71, 197–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tallant, B.; Pelkki, M. A comparison of four forest inventory tools in southeast Arkansas. In Competitiveness of Southern Forest Products Markets in a Global Economy: Trends and Predictions, Proceedings of the Southern Forest Economics Workshop, St. Augustine, FL, USA, 14–16 March 2004; Alavalapati, J.R.R., Carter, D.R., Eds.; Available online: http://sofew.cfr.msstate.edu/papers/0304tallant.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2017).
- Tomppo, E.; Kuusinen, N.; Mäkisara, K.; Katila, M.; McRoberts, R.E. Effects of field plot configurations on the uncertainties of ALS-assisted forest resource estimates. Scand. J. For. Res. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersen, H.-E.; Reutebuch, S.E.; McGaughey, R.J. A rigorous assessment of tree height measurements obtained using airborne lidar and conventional field methods. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2006, 32, 355–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersen, H.-E.; McGaughey, R.J.; Reutebuch, S.E. Estimating forest canopy fuel parameters using lidar data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2005, 94, 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gobakken, T.; Næsset, E. Assessing effects of positioning errors and sample plot size on biophysical stand properties derived from airborne laser scanner data. Can. J. For. Res. 2009, 39, 1036–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holmgren, J.; Nilsson, M.; Olsson, H. Simulating the effects of lidar scanning angle for estimation of mean tree height and canopy closure. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2003, 29, 623–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Næsset, E. Practical large-scale forest stand inventory using a small-footprint airborne scanning laser. Scand. J. For. Res. 2004, 19, 164–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maltamo, M.; Eerikäinen, K.; Pitkänen, J.; Hyyppä, J.; Vehmas, M. Estimation of timber volume and stem density based on scanning laser altimetry and expected tree size distribution functions. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 90, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popescu, S.C.; Wynne, R.H.; Nelson, R.F. Estimating plot-level tree heights with lidar: Local filtering with a canopy-height based variable window size. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2002, 37, 71–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vastaranta, M.; Wulder, M.A.; White, J.C.; Pekkarinen, A.; Tuominen, S.; Ginzler, C.; Kankare, V.; Holopainen, M.; Hyyppä, J.; Hyyppä, H. Airborne laser scanning and digital stereo imagery measures of forest structure: Comparative results and implications to forest mapping and inventory update. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2013, 39, 382–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Näslund, M. Skogsförsöksanstaltens Gallringsförsök i Tallskog. Medd. Stat. Skogsförsöksanst. 1936, 29, pp. 1–136. Available online: http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/10159/1/medd_statens_skogsforskningsanst_029_01.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2017).
- Richards, F.J. A flexible growth function for empirical use. J. Exp. Bot. 1959, 10, 290–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, M.; Parton, J. Heightdiameter equations for boreal tree species in ontario using a mixed-effects modeling approach. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 249, 187–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kangas, A.; Maltamo, M. Forest Inventory: Methodology and Applications; Springer Science & Business Media: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Laasasenaho, J. Taper Curve and Volume Functions for Pine, Spruce and Birch [Pinus sylvestris, Picea abies, Betula pendula, Betula pubescens]. Commun. Inst. For. Fenn. 1982, 108, pp. 1–77. Available online: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:951-40-0589-9 (accessed on 31 January 2017).
- Liang, X.; Hyyppa, J.; Kukko, A.; Kaartinen, H.; Jaakkola, A.; Yu, X. The use of a mobile laser scanning system for mapping large forest plots. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2014, 11, 1504–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, X.; Kankare, V.; Yu, X.; Hyyppa, J.; Holopainen, M. Automated stem curve measurement using terrestrial laser scanning. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2014, 52, 1739–1748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raumonen, P.; Kaasalainen, M.; Åkerblom, M.; Kaasalainen, S.; Kaartinen, H.; Vastaranta, M.; Holopainen, M.; Disney, M.; Lewis, P. Fast automatic precision tree models from terrestrial laser scanner data. Remote Sens. 2013, 5, 491–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hackenberg, J.; Morhart, C.; Sheppard, J.; Spiecker, H.; Disney, M. Highly Accurate Tree Models Derived from Terrestrial Laser Scan Data: A Method Description. Forests 2014, 5, 1069–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, X.; Jaakkola, A.; Wang, Y.; Hyyppä, J.; Honkavaara, E.; Liu, J.; Kaartinen, H. The use of a hand-held camera for individual tree 3d mapping in forest sample plots. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 6587–6603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vastaranta, M.; Latorre, E.; Luoma, V.; Saarinen, N.; Holopainen, M.; Hyyppä, J. Evaluation of a smartphone app for forest sample plot measurements. Forests 2015, 6, 1179–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molinier, M.; Lopéz-Sánchez, C.A.; Toivanen, T.; Korpela, I.; Corral-Rivas, J.J.; Tergujeff, R.; Häme, T. Relasphone-Mobile and Participative In Situ Forest Biomass Measurements Supporting Satellite Image Mapping. Remote Sens 2016, 8, 869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pratihast, A.K.; DeVries, B.; Avitable, V.; De Bruin, S.; Lammert, K.; Tekle, M.; Herold, M. Combining Satellite Data and Community-Based Observations for Forest Monitoring. Forests 2014, 5, 2464–2489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elzinga, C.; Shearer, R.C.; Elzinga, G. Observer variation in tree diameter measurements. West J. Appl. For. 2005, 20, 134–137. [Google Scholar]
- Hyppönen, M.; Roiko-Jokela, P. Koepuiden Mittauksen Tarkkuus Ja Tehokkuus. Fol. For. 1978, 356, 1–25. Available online: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:951-40-0344-6 (accessed on 31 January 2017). [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, J.E.; Haag, C.L. Reliability of height and diameter remeasurements on Red Pine (Pinus resinosa ait.) seedlings. Tree Plant. Notes 1985, 36, 27–29. [Google Scholar]
- McRoberts, R.E.; Hahn, J.T.; Hefty, G.J.; Cleve, J.R.V. Variation in forest inventory field measurements. Can. J. For. Res. 1994, 24, 1766–1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melson, S.; Azuma, D.; Fried, J.S. A first look at measurement error on fia plots using blind plots in the pacific northwest. In Proceedings of the Third Annual Forest Inventory and Analysis Sumposium, St. Paul, MN, USA, 2002; McRoberts, R.E., Reams, G.A., van Deusen, P.C., Moser, J.W., Eds.;
- Omule, S.A.Y. Personal bias in forest measurements. For. Chron. 1980, 56, 222–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Päivinen, R.; Nousiainen, M.; Korhonen, K.T. Puutunnusten Mittaamisen Luotettavuus. Accuracy of Certain Tree Measurements. Folia For. 1992, 787, 1–18. Available online: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:951-40-1197-X (accessed on 31 January 2017). [Google Scholar]
- Kitahara, F.; Mizoue, N.; Yoshida, S. Effects of training for inexperienced surveyors on data quality of tree diameter and height measurements. Silva Fenn. 2010, 44, 657–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Bitterlich, W.; Cieszewski, C.J.; Zasada, M.J. Comparing the use of three dendrometers for measuring diameters at breast height. South. J. Appl. For. 2011, 35, 136–141. [Google Scholar]
- Moran, L.A.; Williams, R. Field note—Comparison of three dendrometers in measuring diameter at breast height field note. North. J. Appl. For. 2002, 19, 28–33. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, M.S.; Bechtold, W.A.; LaBau, V. Five instruments for measuring tree height: An evaluation. South. J. Appl. For. 1994, 18, 76–82. [Google Scholar]
- Guillemette, F.; Lambert, M.-C. Relative effects of dendrometers on the estimation of diameter at breast height, stand basal area and stand volume in uneven-aged northern hardwoods. For. Chron. 2009, 85, 446–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maltamo, M.; Bollandsas, O.M.; Naesset, E.; Gobakken, T.; Packalen, P. Different plot selection strategies for field training data in als-assisted forest inventory. Forestry 2010, 84, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saarinen, N.; Vastaranta, M.; Kankare, V.; Tanhuanpää, T.; Holopainen, M.; Hyyppä, J.; Hyyppä, H. Urban-tree-attribute update using multisource single-tree inventory. Forests 2014, 5, 1032–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vastaranta, M.; Saarinen, N.; Kankare, V.; Holopainen, M.; Kaartinen, H.; Hyyppä, J.; Hyyppä, H. Multisource single-tree inventory in the prediction of tree quality variables and logging recoveries. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 3475–3491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalliovirta, J.; Laasasenaho, J.; Kangas, A. Evaluation of the laser-relascope. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 204, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, R.C.; Matney, T.G. Comparison of optical dendrometers for prediction of standing tree volume. South. J. Appl. For. 1999, 23, 100–107. [Google Scholar]
- Skovsgaard, J.P.; Johannsen, V.K.; Vanclay, J.K. Accuracy and precision of two laser dendrometers. Forestry 1998, 71, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ashley, M.; Roger, R. Tree heights and upper stem diameters. Photogramm. Eng. 1969, 35, 136. [Google Scholar]
- Bradshaw, F. Upper stem diameter measurements with the aid of 35 millimeter photographs. Aust. For. Res. 1972, 6, 17–20. [Google Scholar]
- Varjo, J.; Henttonen, H.; Lappi, J.; Heikkonen, J.; Juujärvi, J. Digital Horizontal Tree Measurements for Forest Inventory. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute. 2006, 40, pp. 1–23. Available online: http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2006/mwp040.htm (accessed on 31 January 2017).
- Henning, J.G.; Radtke, P.J. Detailed stem measurements of standing trees from ground-based scanning lidar. For. Sci. 2006, 52, 67–80. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, H.; Li, Z.; Gong, P.; Cheng, X.; Clinton, N.; Cao, C.; Ni, W.; Wang, L. Automated methods for measuring DBH and tree heights with a commercial scanning lidar. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2011, 77, 219–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kankare, V.; Vauhkonen, J.; Tanhuanpää, T.; Holopainen, M.; Vastaranta, M.; Joensuu, M.; Krooks, A.; Hyyppä, J.; Hyyppä, H.; Alho, P.; et al. Accuracy in estimation of timber assortments and stem distribution—A comparison of airborne and terrestrial laser scanning techniques. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2014, 97, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, X.; Hyyppä, J. Automatic stem mapping by merging several terrestrial laser scans at the feature and decision levels. Sensors 2013, 13, 1614–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maas, H.G.; Bienert, A.; Scheller, S.; Keane, E. Automatic forest inventory parameter determination from terrestrial laser scanner data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2008, 29, 1579–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simonse, M.; Aschoff, T.; Spiecker, H.; Thies, M. Automatic Determination of Forest Inventory Parameters Using Terrestrial Laser Scanning. In Proceedings of the ScandLaser Scientific Workshop on Airborne Laser Scanning of Forests, Umeå, Sweden, 3–4 Sptember 2003; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Resource Management and Geomatics: Umeå, Sweden, 2003; pp. 252–258. [Google Scholar]
- Tansey, K.; Selmes, N.; Anstee, A.; Tate, N.J.; Denniss, A. Estimating tree and stand variables in a corsican pine woodland from terrestrial laser scanner data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2009, 30, 5195–5209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vastaranta, M.; Melkas, T.; Holopainen, M.; Kaartinen, H.; Hyyppä, J.; Hyyppä, H. Laser-based field measurements in tree-level forest data acquisition. Photogramm. J. Finl. 2009, 21, 51–61. Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/881a/2577fd02a960b7f2f3dbe825932f79cb198f.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2017). [Google Scholar]
- Larjavaara, M.; Muller-Landau, H.C. Measuring tree height: A quantitative comparison of two common field methods in a moist tropical forest. Method Ecol. Evol. 2013, 4, 793–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tree Species | n | mean dbhobs (cm) | std dbhobs (cm) | min dbhobs (cm) | max dbhobs (cm) | mean height (m) | std height (m) | min height (m) | max height (m) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scots pine | 156 | 20.1 | 6.9 | 6.2 | 46.6 | 17.7 | 4.3 | 5.0 | 32.1 |
Norway spruce | 81 | 24.8 | 7.8 | 5.6 | 44.5 | 21.7 | 5.7 | 5.2 | 33.1 |
Birch | 82 | 17.0 | 7.1 | 6.2 | 42.7 | 18.0 | 4.4 | 6.9 | 33.1 |
All sample trees | 319 | 20.5 | 7.7 | 5.6 | 46.6 | 18.8 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 33.1 |
dbhobs | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Species | Df | Sum Sq | Mean Sq | F-value | p-value |
All sample trees | 3 | 3194 | 1064.8 | 0.179 | 0.911 |
Scots pine | 3 | 1644 | 548 | 0.114 | 0.952 |
Norway spruce | 3 | 1320 | 440.1 | 0.072 | 0.975 |
Birch | 3 | 459 | 153.1 | 0.031 | 0.993 |
Height | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Species | Df | Sum Sq | Mean Sq | F-value | p-value |
All sample trees | 3 | 13,819 | 4606.3 | 1.832 | 0.140 |
Scots pine | 3 | 6262 | 2087.2 | 1.117 | 0.342 |
Norway spruce | 3 | 4844 | 1614.6 | 0.495 | 0.686 |
Birch | 3 | 3280 | 1093.3 | 0.553 | 0.647 |
dbhobs (cm) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Mensurationist 1 | Mensurationist 2 | Mensurationist 3 | Mensurationist 4 | |
Scots pine | 19.95 | 20.03 | 20.09 | 20.38 |
Norway spruce | 24.52 | 24.68 | 24.81 | 25.07 |
Birch | 16.82 | 16.97 | 17.05 | 17.14 |
All sample trees | 20.31 | 20.42 | 20.51 | 20.74 |
h (dm) | ||||
Mensurationist 1 | Mensurationist 2 | Mensurationist 3 | Mensurationist 4 | |
Scots pine | 17.91 | 18.02 | 17.83 | 17.21 |
Norway spruce | 21.77 | 22.12 | 21.69 | 21.05 |
Birch | 18.29 | 18.16 | 18.09 | 17.47 |
All sample trees | 18.99 | 19.10 | 18.88 | 18.25 |
Species | n | Std dbhobs (cm) | Std dbhobs (%) | Std h (m) | Std h (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scots pine | 156 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 2.7 |
Norway spruce | 81 | 0.3 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 2.6 |
Birch | 82 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 3.6 |
All sample trees | 319 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 2.9 |
Dbh classes | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
dbhobs | h | ||||||
dbh Classes (cm) | n | Mean (cm) | Stdobs (cm) | Stdobs (%) | Mean (m) | Stdobs (m) | Stdobs (%) |
5.0–12.9 | 57 | 10.3 | 0.2 | 1.9 | 12.5 | 0.4 | 2.9 |
13.0–16.9 | 61 | 15.1 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 16.4 | 0.5 | 3.0 |
17.0–20.9 | 56 | 19.1 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 18.2 | 0.5 | 2.6 |
21.0–24.9 | 62 | 23.3 | 0.3 | 1.4 | 20.7 | 0.6 | 3.1 |
25.0+ | 83 | 30.3 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 23.9 | 0.7 | 2.8 |
All trees | 319 | 20.5 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 18.8 | 0.5 | 2.9 |
Height classes | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
dbhobs | h | ||||||
Height Classes (m) | n | Mean (cm) | Stdobs (cm) | Stdobs (%) | Mean (m) | Stdobs (m) | Stdobs (%) |
5.0–14.9 | 63 | 11.6 | 0.2 | 1.9 | 12.0 | 0.4 | 3.0 |
15.0–17.4 | 63 | 17.2 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 16.4 | 0.4 | 2.7 |
17.5–19.9 | 64 | 20.1 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 18.2 | 0.5 | 2.6 |
20.0–22.4 | 44 | 22.2 | 0.3 | 1.3 | 20.8 | 0.7 | 3.4 |
22.5+ | 85 | 29.0 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 25.0 | 0.7 | 2.9 |
All trees | 319 | 20.5 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 18.8 | 0.5 | 2.9 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Luoma, V.; Saarinen, N.; Wulder, M.A.; White, J.C.; Vastaranta, M.; Holopainen, M.; Hyyppä, J. Assessing Precision in Conventional Field Measurements of Individual Tree Attributes. Forests 2017, 8, 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8020038
Luoma V, Saarinen N, Wulder MA, White JC, Vastaranta M, Holopainen M, Hyyppä J. Assessing Precision in Conventional Field Measurements of Individual Tree Attributes. Forests. 2017; 8(2):38. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8020038
Chicago/Turabian StyleLuoma, Ville, Ninni Saarinen, Michael A. Wulder, Joanne C. White, Mikko Vastaranta, Markus Holopainen, and Juha Hyyppä. 2017. "Assessing Precision in Conventional Field Measurements of Individual Tree Attributes" Forests 8, no. 2: 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8020038