ArticleAnnals of botany2021
Forest above-ground volume assessments with terrestrial laser scanning: a ground-truth validation experiment in temperate, managed forests.
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.
- Combined impact of semantic segmentation and quantitative structure modelling of Southern pine trees using terrestrial laser scanning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Self-adaptive individual tree modeling based on skeleton graph optimization and fractal self-similarity.Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Article
- Terrestrial laser scanning: a new standard of forest measuring and modelling?Annals of botany · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.