2013
DOI: 10.1080/2150704x.2012.742211
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bias in lidar-based canopy gap fraction estimates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Studies have also focused on gap fraction and leaf area index (LAI), such as Danson et al (2007), who derived canopy gap fractions from TLS data, and work of Huang and Pretzsch (2010), who developed a method to predict LAI that incorporates nonuniformity of the foliage distribution. Vaccari et al (2013) also examined gap fraction from TLS and developed correction factors based on canopy perimeter to account for instrument bias when the laser footprint covers a mixture of canopy elements and gaps. Full-waveform TLS can FIG.…”
Section: Terrestrial Laser Scanningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies have also focused on gap fraction and leaf area index (LAI), such as Danson et al (2007), who derived canopy gap fractions from TLS data, and work of Huang and Pretzsch (2010), who developed a method to predict LAI that incorporates nonuniformity of the foliage distribution. Vaccari et al (2013) also examined gap fraction from TLS and developed correction factors based on canopy perimeter to account for instrument bias when the laser footprint covers a mixture of canopy elements and gaps. Full-waveform TLS can FIG.…”
Section: Terrestrial Laser Scanningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The outcome can then be used for vegetation structure analysis, when the objective is to accurately model, for example, the branches and trunks within forest canopies [7]. In summary, considering the aforementioned recommendations, the developed method in this study will not only remove ghost points at the edge of canopy perimeters when gaps are distinguishable [23], but will also delete ghost points from scenes with overlapping objects and consequently improve continuous-wave TLS data quality.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A manual selection and correction of the point cloud during the TLS data preprocessing procedure has also been tested [9], but this technique is not efficient to delete ghost points on large datasets (e.g., real forest canopies). More recent studies, however, have improved quality of TLS data collected in forest environments by investigating the morphology of canopy gaps and correcting for the bias introduced by points on time-of-flight TLS data [23]. Improved data is also obtained when default and customized filters (i.e., threshold filters for range and intensity) are used to remove ghost points on datasets from continuous-wave and time-of-flight TLS systems [7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This results in high precision time series, i.e., with low noise in the temporal domain. On the other side, partial hits lead to underestimation of gap fraction by these kind of sensors [46,48]. Partial hits result from objects that only partially cover the laser instantaneous field of view, but are registered as full interceptions by the waveform analysis methods of commercial suppliers to maximise point cloud density.…”
Section: Reference Datasetsmentioning
confidence: 99%