ArticleAnnals of botany2021
Sampling forests with terrestrial laser scanning.
Article in Annals of botany, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Center Determination Method, Point Cloud Filtering and Cross-Section Type on the Accuracy of Tree Stem Volume Estimation Using Laser Scanning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Terrestrial laser scanning: a new standard of forest measuring and modelling?Annals of botany · 2021Article
- How can we know what we don't know? A Commentary on: Sampling forests with terrestrial laser scanning.Annals of botany · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsTerrestrial laser scanners (TLSs) have successfully captured various properties of individual trees and have potential to further increase the quality and efficiency of forest surveys. However, TLSs are limited to line of sight observations, and forests are complex structural environments that can occlude TLS beams and thereby cause incomplete TLS samples. We evaluate the prevalence and sources of occlusion that limit line of sight to forest stems for TLS scans, assess the impacts of TLS sample incompleteness, and evaluate sampling strategies and data analysis techniques aimed at improving sample quality and representativeness.
methodsWe use a large number of TLS scans (761), taken across a 255 650-m2 area of forest with detailed field survey data: the Harvard Forest Global Earth Observatory (ForestGEO) (MA, USA). Sets of TLS returns are matched to stem positions in the field surveys to derive TLS-observed stem sets, which are compared with two additional stem sets derived solely from the field survey data: a set of stems within a fixed range from the TLS and a set of stems based on 2-D modelling of line of sight. Stem counts and densities are compared between the stem sets, and four alternative derivations of area to correct stem densities for the effects of occlusion are evaluated. Representation of diameter at breast height and species, drawn from the field survey data, are also compared between the stem sets. KEY
resultsOcclusion from non-stem sources was the major influence on TLS line of sight. Transect and point TLS samples demonstrated better representativeness of some stem properties than did plots. Deriving sampled area from TLS scans improved estimates of stem density.
conclusionsTLS sampling efforts should consider alternative sampling strategies and move towards in-progress assessment of sample quality and dynamic adaptation of sampling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.