Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34472592›Full record

ArticleAnnals of botany2021

Forest above-ground volume assessments with terrestrial laser scanning: a ground-truth validation experiment in temperate, managed forests.

Miro Demol, Kim Calders, Hans Verbeeck, Bert Gielen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Miro DemolCAVElab - Computational and Applied Vegetation Ecology, Department of Environment, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent,Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-5492-2874
Kim CaldersCAVElab - Computational and Applied Vegetation Ecology, Department of Environment, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent,Belgium.
Hans VerbeeckCAVElab - Computational and Applied Vegetation Ecology, Department of Environment, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent,Belgium.
Bert GielenPLECO - Plants and Ecosystems, Faculty of Science, Antwerp University, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium.

Funding

European Union's Horizon 2020 730944 -STEREO III programme - project SR/02/355
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsQuantifying the Earth's forest above-ground biomass (AGB) is indispensable for effective climate action and developing forest policy. Yet, current allometric scaling models (ASMs) to estimate AGB suffer several drawbacks related to model selection and uncertainties about calibration data traceability. Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) offers a promising non-destructive alternative. Tree volume is reconstructed from TLS point clouds with quantitative structure models (QSMs) and converted to AGB with wood basic density. Earlier studies have found overall TLS-derived forest volume estimates to be accurate, but highlighted problems for reconstructing finer branches. Our objective was to evaluate TLS for estimating tree volumes by comparison with reference volumes and volumes from ASMs.

methodsWe quantified the woody volume of 65 trees in Belgium (from 77 to 2800 L; Pinus sylvestris, Fagus sylvatica, Larix decidua, and Fraxinus excelsior) with QSMs and destructive reference measurements. We tested a volume expansion factor (VEF) approach by multiplying the solid and merchantable volume from QSMs by literature VEF values. KEY

resultsStem volume was reliably estimated with TLS. Total volume was overestimated by +21 % using original QSMs, by +9 % and -12 % using two sets of VEF-augmented QSMs, and by -7.3 % using best-available ASMs. The most accurate method differed per site, and the prediction errors for each method varied considerably between sites.

conclusionsVEF-augmented QSMs were only slightly better than original QSMs for estimating tree volume for common species in temperate forests. Despite satisfying estimates with ASMs, the model choice was a large source of uncertainty, and species-specific models did not always exist. Therefore, we advocate for further improving tree volume reconstructions with QSMs, especially for fine branches, instead of collecting more ground-truth data to calibrate VEF and allometric models. Promising developments such as improved co-registration and smarter filtering approaches are ongoing to further constrain volumetric errors in TLS-derived estimates.

Indexed as

FagusForestsBiomassLasersTreesallometric scaling modelsFagus sylvaticaForest inventoryFraxinus excelsiorLarix deciduaPinus sylvestrisquantitative structure modellingterrestrial laser scanningvolume expansion factors

Identifiers

PMID34472592
PMCPMC8557377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.