2015
DOI: 10.1109/jstars.2015.2416001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Single-Scan Stem Reconstruction Using Low-Resolution Terrestrial Laser Scanner Data

Abstract: Despite the active research, terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) has remained underutilized for forest structure assessment due to reliance of processing algorithms on high-resolution data, which may be costly and time-consuming to collect. Operational inventories, however, necessitate maximizing sample size while minimizing time and cost. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of a novel technique that enables stem reconstruction from low-resolution, single-scan TLS data in an effort to satisf… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
47
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
47
0
Order By: Relevance
“…), realized by the Rochester Institute of Technology (Kelbe et al. , ) and extensively refined by UMB. The detailed specifications of the instruments are included in Figure .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…), realized by the Rochester Institute of Technology (Kelbe et al. , ) and extensively refined by UMB. The detailed specifications of the instruments are included in Figure .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After more than a decade of research in the field of the use of terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) for forestry, conclusions of many research papers presented TLS lack of mobility as the greatest disadvantage of this technology (Liang et al 2014Kelbe et al 2015). Mobile mapping systems (MMS), which include mobile laser scanner and additional cameras, can provide point clouds with density similar to TLS.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Examples for studies, which provided comparable accuracy metrics, are from Liang and Hyyppä [8], who reported on average a bias of 0.5 cm and a RMSE of 1.4 cm for their test sites, McDaniel et al [6] with a median error of 9.8 cm and an RMSE of 13.2 cm and Maas et al [20], who achieved a bias of 0.6 cm and a RMSE of 2.1 cm. R 2 values were reported by Kelbe et al [9], who achieved a R 2 of 0.8 in combination with an RMSE of 6.4 cm and by Yao et al [14] with an R 2 of 0.62 and an RMSE of 7.6 cm.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%