ArticleScientific reports2025
Combined impact of semantic segmentation and quantitative structure modelling of Southern pine trees using terrestrial laser scanning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Southern pine forests play a key role in the ecological function and economic vitality of the southeastern United States. High-resolution terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) has become an indispensable tool for advancing tree structural research and monitoring. A critical challenge in this field is the accurate segmentation of leaf and wood components, which directly impacts the reliability of Quantitative Structure Models (QSMs). Segmentation techniques have progressed, but most existing methods are tailored for broadleaf species, with limited exploration for coniferous species such as southern pines. Addressing this gap, our study evaluates the performance of multiple segmentation algorithms on TLS data from southern pines, providing valuable insights into improving structural analysis and supporting more precise and efficient forest research and monitoring methodologies. We collected TLS data from longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) trees in Florida, USA, and compared the performance of four segmentation algorithms: TLSep, Graph, DBSCAN, and KPConv to separate leaf and wood. We found that KPConv was the most accurate method of segmenting wood and leaf points, with an overall accuracy (OA) of 98% and F1 score of 98% for loblolly pine and 95% and 94%, respectively, for longleaf pine. Although KPConv requires a substantial initial investment for training, its inference time is fast, making it a strong candidate for high-accuracy large-scale applications. These results led to highly reliable QSMs across trunk, branch, and total volume estimates. In contrast, DBSCAN, while slightly less accurate (OA of 92% for loblolly pine and 90% for longleaf pine), does not require training data and offers a favorable trade-off between performance and efficiency. These findings highlight the importance of selecting segmentation algorithms based on specific research goals, balancing accuracy and computational feasibility in forest structural modeling.
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.