2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.100
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Factors influencing the accuracy of ground-based tree-height measurements for major European tree species

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
29
1
6

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
2
29
1
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Since our target species are large-size high-value broadleaved trees, some error in field measurement could be expected because of the tree height itself and tree crowns which limit the visibility to the tree tops. This was also highlighted by Hunter et al [15] and Stereńczak et al [17]. These studies reported that small measurement errors were found in conifer species and larger trees were subjected more to height measurement errors in the field.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 67%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Since our target species are large-size high-value broadleaved trees, some error in field measurement could be expected because of the tree height itself and tree crowns which limit the visibility to the tree tops. This was also highlighted by Hunter et al [15] and Stereńczak et al [17]. These studies reported that small measurement errors were found in conifer species and larger trees were subjected more to height measurement errors in the field.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 67%
“…The individual tree DBH can be measured accurately by traditional field measurements, but tree height is relatively difficult to measure accurately [13]. Further, the results of tree height measurements are greatly influenced by many factors including biophysical and topographic factors, instrument errors, and human errors [14][15][16][17]. Although errors are likely to be presented in the field measurements of tree height than other parameters, such as DBH [15,18], field-measured tree heights have been widely understood to be the most reliable source of tree height information [19].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thinned stands have for several decades lower basal area than unthinned stands. Evaluating the effects of thinning on forest carbon stocks need measurements of standing and lying deadwood and coarse woody debris (Woldendorp et al 2004, Harmon et al 2020, reliable biomass functions and accurate tree height measurements (Neumann et al 2016, Stereńczak et al 2019. This case study provides some evidence that oak-hornbeam forests may have a broad "plateau-like" relationship between increment and stocking (Assmann 1970), when stands approach their maximum basal area.…”
Section: Harvesting Versus Natural Mortalitymentioning
confidence: 97%
“…According to the extensive research of Stereńczak et al [49], the relative errors for tree height measurements using a Vertex instrument are 2.52% and −1.25% for Q. robur and A. glutinosa, respectively. Other tree species (C. betulus, F. angustifolia) found in the study area of the present research were not in the scope of the research by Stereńczak et al [49], but it can be assumed that expected errors do not significantly deviate from those reported for Q. robur and A. glutinosa. For trees without height measurements, tree heights were estimated using the developed local species-specific dbh-height models fitted with Michailloff's function [50].…”
Section: Field (Ground-truth) Datamentioning
confidence: 99%