G Model

JAG-1117; No. of Pages 13 ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and

Geoinformation
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jag

Forest inventories by LiDAR data: A comparison of single tree

segmentation and metric-based methods for inventories of a
heterogeneous temperate forest
Hooman Lati a, , Fabian E. Fassnacht b , Jrg Mller c , Agalya Tharani d , Stefan Dech a,e ,
Marco Heurich c
a
Department of Remote Sensing in Cooperation with German Aerospace Center, University of Wrzburg, Oswald-Klpe-Weg 86, 97074 Wrzburg, Germany
b
Institute for Geography and Geoecology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Kaiserstr 12, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
c
Department of Nature Protection and Research, Bavarian Forest National Park, Freyunger Str. 2, 94481 Grafenau, Germany
d
Institute of Remote Sensing, Anna University, Sardar Patel Rd., Chennai, India
e
German Remote Sensing Data Center (DFD), German Aerospace Center (DLR), 82234 Wessling, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Inventories of temperate forests of Central Europe mainly rely on terrestrial measurements. Rapid alter-
Received 7 April 2015 ations of forests by disturbances and multilayer silvicultural systems increasingly challenge the use of
Accepted 15 June 2015 conventional plot based inventories, particularly in protected areas. Airborne LiDAR offers an alternative
Available online xxx
or supplement to conventional inventories, but despite the possibility of obtaining such remote sensing
data, its operational use for broader areas in Central Europe remains experimental. We evaluated two
Keywords:
methods of forest inventory that use LiDAR data at the landscape level: the single tree segment-based
LiDAR
method and an area-based method. We compared a set of structural forest attributes modeled by these
Forest structure inventory
Single tree segment-based method
methods with a conventional forest inventory of the highly heterogeneous forest of the Bavarian For-
Area-based method est National Park (Germany), which partially includes stands affected by severe natural disturbances.
Spatial model Area-based models were accurate for all structural attributes, with cross-validated average root mean
Landscape level management squared error ranging from 3.4 to 13.4 in the best modeling case. The coefcients of variation for the
mapped area-based estimations were mostly minor. The area-based estimations were varied but highly
correlated (Pearsons correlations between 0.56 and 0.85) with single tree segmentation estimations;
undetected trees in the single tree segmentat-based method were the main sources of inconsistency. The
single tree segment-based method was highly correlated ( 0.54 to 0.90) with data from ground-based
forest inventories. The single tree-based algorithm delivered highly reliable estimates for a set of forest
structural attributes that are of interest in forest inventories at the landscape scale. We recommend LiDAR
forest inventories at the landscape scale in both heterogeneous commercial forests and large protected
areas in the central European temperate sites.
2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction et al., 2005 for an in-depth denition of structural attributes).

Forest structure is described by various attributes associ-
ated with spatiotemporal properties of forest stands, including
height, canopy closure, understory cover, diameter at breast height
(DBH), and volume of standing and lying trees (see McElhinny
Corresponding author. Fax: +49 931 31896380.
E-mail addresses: hooman.lati@uni-wuerzburg.de (H. Lati),
fabian.fassnacht@kit.edu (F.E. Fassnacht), joerg.mueller@npv-bw.bayern.de
(J. Mller), agalya.tharani@daad-alumni.de (A. Tharani), stefan.dech@dlr.de
(S. Dech), marco.heurich@npv-bw.bayern.de (M. Heurich).
Owing to the increasing occurrences of biotic and abiotic dis-
turbances (windthrows, bark beetle infestations, and wildres),
forests have become more heterogeneous (Seidl et al., 2014). The
increasingly prescribed close-to-nature forest management has
also contributed to the heterogeneity, particularly in protected
areas, such as national parks (Boncina, 2011). Since conventional
methods of forest inventory, which involve eld samplings of var-
ious intensities, succeed in capturing only a limited portion of this
heterogeneity, remote sensing data have opened new horizons for
area-wide mapping from tree to landscape scales (e.g., McRoberts
and Tomppo, 2007). Moreover, remote sensing methods are more

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.06.008
0303-2434/ 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Lati, H., et al., Forest inventories by LiDAR data: A comparison of single tree segmenta-
tion and metric-based methods for inventories of a heterogeneous temperate forest. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.06.008
G Model
JAG-1117; No. of Pages 13 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 H. Lati et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation xxx (2015) xxxxxx
cost effective and can be easily applied in remote areas with limited
access, as is typical for protected areas (Heurich, 2008).
Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) systems provide accurate
data for describing forest structure because of their ability to mea-
sure the inherent three-dimensional structure of stands via discrete
return or full waveform measurements (reviewed in Lati, 2012).
The assets of LiDAR data have been discussed based on case stud-
ies on a wide variety of forest ecosystems worldwide, ranging from
boreal (Hyypp et al., 2008) to temperate (Lati et al., 2012; Tsui
et al., 2013) and tropical (Drake et al., 2002; Treuhaft et al., 2010)
ecosystems (see also Fassnacht et al., 2014 for a systematic review).
Most works published to date share a common interest in inte-
grating LiDAR surveys, specically their models, validations, and
wall-to-wall maps, into the existing frameworks of forest inven-
tory on national (McRoberts et al., 2010), provincial (state-wide)
(Johnson et al., 2014), and enterprise levels (Straub et al., 2013),
with the ultimate goal of a full forest inventory with LiDAR data.
Recent advances in theory and practice facilitate the use of LiDAR
data for supporting forest inventories (White et al., 2013). Wulder
et al. (2013) have summarized the current pros and cons that sup-
port or constrain the design of inventory systems consisting only of
LiDAR data; most of the arguments are somewhat related to strate-
gic, logistic, and nancial planning issues beyond the technique
itself.
Nsset (2004), Nsset et al. (2004) and Hyypp et al. (2008)
summarized the status quo of LiDAR-based studies with a specic
focus as baseline for forest inventory in Scandinavia. In the USA,
state-wide applications are increasingly supported due to the avail-
ability of affordable LiDAR data covering large areas (Skowronski
and Lister, 2012). For such a forest inventory in Canada, White
et al. (2013) published instructional best practices with optimal
LiDAR specications for technical instrumentation, data processing,
ground sampling, and modeling, and indicated the ground data col-
lection (sampling design, intensity and measured individual trees)
to be of major signicance in such surveys.
An existing ground forest inventory can act as a basis for
subsequent LiDAR forest inventory systems by providing not
only essential reference data for the model building process, but
also an additional source of a priori knowledge when design-
ing an improved eld survey. The number of eld samples can
then eventually be reduced, making the inventory cost effective
(Gobakken et al., 2013). However, the performance of LiDAR inven-
tory approaches, in particular when extrapolating the estimations
to landscape levels, can be inuenced by various ground sampling
properties (Lati and Koch, 2012).
Despite substantial advances in LiDAR methods, a forest inven-
tory based solely on LiDAR at the landscape level is still an
experimental concept in Central European forests because of their
stand heterogeneity, effects of natural disturbances, and forest
management regimes. A LiDAR forest inventory relies primarily
on the quality of structural attributes calculated from previously
delineated single trees. Heurich (2008) presented a watershed seg-
mentation method for tree delineation, which, when applied to
discrete LiDAR data, successfully delineates up to ca. 80% of the
individual trees of the top story of the stand. Reitberger et al. (2009)
then introduced single tree segmentation using full waveform
LiDAR data and normalized cut segmentation. With this method,
the full information content of the 3D point cloud can be utilized
to detect single trees, which results in a notably improved segmen-
tation of smaller trees in mixed stands compared to that achieved
by watershed segmentation. Based on the method of single tree
segmentation, Yao et al. (2012a) introduced an approach to derive
diameter at breast height (DBH) and stem volume of single trees.
However, this method has not yet been generalized for typical for-
est inventories, i.e., plot sampling and other structural attributes.
Please cite this article in press as: Lati, H., et al., Forest inventories by LiDAR data: A comparison of single tree segmenta-
tion and metric-based methods for inventories of a heterogeneous temperate forest. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.06.008
In this study, we compare two methods of estimating forest
structural attributes for inventories by LiDAR data using the exam-
ple of a heterogeneous Central European forest at the landscape
level in the Bavarian Forest National Park (Germany). We compared
the single tree segment-based method, an area-based method, and
conventional forest inventory on plots in the study area. We extrap-
olated the results of models and their uncertainty to the entire
national park via wall-to-wall mapping. We tested whether the
area-based LiDAR method produces models and area-wide maps
that support the management measures used in the heterogeneous
forest stands and whether the applied single tree segment-based
method delivers results sufcient for landscape level management
without the need for complementary eld data.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
The study area includes the entire Bavarian Forest National Park
(24,220 ha) at the Czech-German border (49 3 19 N, 13 12 49 E).
The southern part of the current park was designated as the rst
national park of Germany in 1970 and was extended to the north-
west in 1997. Characterized by a rough topography with elevation
ranging from 600 to 1453 m a.s.l., the national park features a
cool and humid climate with heavy and long-lasting snow cover
at higher elevations (Ewald et al., 2014). The study area mainly
encompasses three major forest communities, including sub-alpine
stands dominated by Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst) and occa-
sionally mountain ash (Sorbus aucuparia L.), slopes covered by a
mixture of Norway spruce, silver r (Abies alba Mill.), European
beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), and sycamore maple (Acer pseudoplatanus
L.), and valley bottoms dominated by Norway spruce, moun-
tain ash, and birches (Betula pendula Roth and Betula pubescens
Ehrh.) (Heurich and Neufanger 2005). In the mid-1990s, spruce-
dominated stands in the national park were massively attacked by
the spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus L.). By 2013, this resulted in
the death of mature spruce stands over an area of 7000 ha. Accord-
ing to the non-intervention strategy of the park administration,
snags are not removed from the sites (Lausch et al., 2013).
2.2. Ground-based forest inventory data
Within the national park, 5841 permanent inventory plots in
a systematic grid of 200 m 200 m have been established. We
selected 118 representative circular inventory plots by principal
component analysis using the structural target parameters of this
study as attributes. Within each 500 m2 plot, we measured the stem
position, DBH (7 cm), and height of each living dead tree and snag
in 2013. These conventional forest inventory ground data were
used for training and validation of models based on LiDAR data.
The position of each plot was measured at least twice for 30 min
with differential GPS using post-processing routine.
2.3. Processing ground-based forest inventory data
The raw forest inventory ground data were pre-processed for
training and validation of area-based models of LiDAR data. The
standing volume of each tree was calculated from equations inte-
grating DBH, height, and tree species-specic constant parameters
of merchantable wood in Bavaria (Franz, 1971) derived by Kennel
(1973). Lying dead trees were excluded when tree volumes were
calculated. Species-specic single tree volumes were aggregated on
the plot level. In addition, the structural attributes mean DBH, basal
area-weighted DBH, mean height, dominant height, basal area-
weighted height, and the number of trees per ha were calculated for
each plot. The formulas for calculating the structural attributes are
G Model
JAG-1117; No. of Pages 13 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Lati et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation xxx (2015) xxxxxx
Table 1
Formula used to calculate basal area-weighted DBH, dominant height, basal area-weighted height, and standing volume per plot.
Name Formula
nn=1 (DBHi bai )
Basal area-weighted DBH DBHba =
nn=1 bai
1

n20%
Dominant height Hdom = Hi
n20%
n=1
nn=1 (Hi bai )
Basal area-weighted height Hba =
nn=1 bai
 2
DBHp
Standing volume V = Hp f
2
summarized in Table 1 and described in detail in Heurich (2006).
The calculated attributes on single tree level were aggregated to
sample plot level.
The national park has a number of stands with various num-
bers of snags that were previously infested to a major extent by
bark beetles. The dataset studied here included approximately 263
snags distributed within 54 sample plots. Since growth models are
commonly based on excluding the snags from forest growth projec-
tions, we excluded al the existing snags from the available dataset
prior to modeling. The mean and standard deviations of all forest
attributes are summarized in Table 2.
2.4. Full waveform LiDAR data
Full waveform LiDAR data across the national park was collected
with a Riegl 680i laser scanner (350 KHz, nominal point density
3040 points per m2 ; altitude 650 m. The data was recorded at a
0.32 m footprint) by Milan Flug GmbH within three days in June
2012 under leaf-on condition. These data was used for deriving the
digital terrain model (DTM) and all further LiDAR metrics.
Prior to area-based forest structure modeling, the original
LiDAR data were pre-processed as follows. The coordinates of the
individual returns and intensity values were rst extracted by
decomposition of the LiDAR waveforms using Gaussian functions.
The intensity values were corrected by the applying
as the traveling distance of the laser beam from the sensor to the
reecting object, RRef as a reference distance, and n = 2.1 as a cali-
bration factor (Reitberger et al., 2009). The sum of waveforms was
normalized to a maximum value of 1. They were then truncated
at the end of the ground reections to avoid the presumable effect
of post-pulse oscillators on ground reections, which can result
in amplitudes falsifying the LiDAR metrics. The amplitudes of the
sum waveforms were then accumulated. The ground height was
extracted from the DTM. LiDAR metrics were then calculated in
separate 0.1 m height layers along the stand height; pulse distances
in the waveform were varied, if necessary. The nal metrics were
written in a raster format of 10 m 10 m pixel size.
2.5. Segmentation of single trees from full waveform LiDAR data
In an analysis of 18 sample plots of 2 selected stands in the
national park, Yao et al. (2012a) developed a method to automat-
ically derive tree height, DBH, and standing volume from single
tree-based data extracted by normalized cut segmentation accord-
ing to Reitberger et al. (2009). Here, the algorithm was reran on
the 2012 full waveform LiDAR data of the entire national park to
obtain the structural attributes of the single tree segments. The
Please cite this article in press as: Lati, H., et al., Forest inventories by LiDAR data: A comparison of single tree segmenta-
tion and metric-based methods for inventories of a heterogeneous temperate forest. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.06.008
3
Parameters Description
DBH = diameter of a tree at breast The sum of products of all tree DBHs and their
height corresponding basal area, divided by the sum
bai = basal area of a tree of all basal areas within a given plot
H = sum of height of the 20% highest The mean height of the 20% highest trees
trees in the plot within a given plot
n20% = number of the 20% highest trees
in the plot
H = height of a tree The sum of products of all tree heights and
bai = basal area of a tree their corresponding basal area, divided by the
sum of all basal areas within a given plot
f = form factor Standard single tree volume function (Kennel,
DBHp = estimated DBH 1973)
Hp = estimated tree height
reader is referred to Yao et al. (2012a) and Reitberger et al. (2009)
for details on single tree segmentation and retrieval of their struc-
tural attributes and to Yao et al. (2014) for analysis of the sensitivity
of the single tree detection algorithm. Briey, following decompo-
sition and calibration of the full waveform LiDAR data, the forest
stands are converted to numerous voxels, from which single trees
are segmented by means of normalized cut segmentation. The input
parameters of the segmentation process include x, y, and z coordi-
nates of the laser beams, in which the pulse width and intensity of
the waveform decomposition are integrated. The basis of the tree
segmentation is to solve a cost function that aims at minimizing
the similarity between two given adjacent segments. The segmen-
tation process is eventually followed by a stem detection approach
to delineate single trees in the overstory and understory (Reitberger
et al., 2009).
To model the standing volume of each segmented tree, the
crown laser points are separated from the remaining points of a tree
by nding the crown base height. Then, the crown volume (Vcrown )
is estimated by triangulating the previously found crown points
with 3-D alpha shapes. This is followed by deriving the 2-D convex
hull of the crown points as the tree crown area (Acrown ). The crown
height (Hcrown ) is represented by the difference between the lowest
and highest crown points, and the tree height (Htree ) is derived by
taking the distance between the maximum height within a given
Rsn segment and the digital terrain model.
Rn
with RS
Ref The volume of each segmented tree is then estimated by a subse-
quent multiple linear regression of Vcrown , Acrown , Hcrown , and Htree .
Using these four input parameters, a similar regression approach is
used to estimate the DBH of each segmented tree (Yao et al., 2012a).
In our study, we also derived a set of additional structural
attributes, including basal area-weighted DBH, dominant height,
basal area-weighted height, and number of trees per ha (Table 1).
We created buffer zones of 500 m2 around the center coordinates
of the forest inventory plots and aggregated the tree attributes
(average values of DBH and height) on the sample plot level.
An important property of the single tree segment-based method
is that it is based entirely on LiDAR information and does
not depend on additional ground reference data except for the
above-mentioned general relationships between DBH and standing
volume, which are assumed to be relatively stable over the average
age of trees in the study area.
2.6. Area-based method using LiDAR metrics
The area-based models were based on using the entire wave-
forms (i.e., laser beams) which were aggregated on each inventory
sample plot. That is, all returns within a given plot were used
G Model
JAG-1117; No. of Pages 13 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 H. Lati et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Table 2
Summary of forest stand statistics within the snags-excluded dataset. Standard deviations are given in parentheses.

Species No. of Mean height Dominant Basal DBH [cm] Basal Volume per ha Trees per ha
stratum plots [m] height [m] area-weighted area-weighted [m3 ]
height [m] DBH [cm]

Coniferous 30 15.79 (10.05) 21.23 (12.51) 15.70 (10.46) 21.85 (12.14) 21.54 (12.89) 353.55 (328.52) 727.33 (644.77)
Deciduous 48 20.26 (5.91) 28.41 (6.81) 20.61 (6.45) 23.70 (7.91) 24.65 (9.69) 362.99 (236.66) 593.75 (490.21)
Mixed 38 20.26 (7.84) 29.79 (9.70) 20.72 (8.59) 25.80 (10.51) 26.90 (12.50) 568.88 (374.43) 695.26 (469.120)

for calculating the applied LiDAR metrics. As inputs to area-based tree segmentation, we considered two variants. In the rst case,
models of forest structural attributes, LiDAR metrics were pre- unavailable plot values from the single tree segmentation method
selected based on both our previous experiences across the study caused by undetected tree segments were replaced by 0. In the sec-
site and the recently-published systematic review of Fassnacht et al. ond variant, such plots were removed from the analysis. For each
(2014a). The selected height metrics included the percentage of case, Pearsons correlation coefcient was calculated to compare
laser points between minimum and maximum height, maximum the results.
height, median height, standard deviation of height, and number of Modeling (training and prediction), evaluation, and paralleliza-
laser points. When we derived the height metrics, a height thresh- tion processes were implemented in R (R Development Core Team,
old of 2 m above ground was considered, which was shown to be 2015) by combining caret (Kuhn and Johnson, 2013), kernlab
effective when focusing on extracting LiDAR beams for modeling (Karatzoglou et al., 2004), raster (Hijmans and VanEtten, 2012) and
tree canopy (e.g., Packaln and Maltamo, 2006) and which avoids a snow (Tierney et al., 2013) libraries. A summary of the methodology
presumable intermixing effect that would otherwise exist between as shown in Fig. 1.
the applied LiDAR height and the understory metrics.
In addition, three density metrics (as suggested by Nsset,
3. Results
2004) were used with the aim of representing the pene-
tration rate of laser beams in different stand stories. These
3.1. Area-based models
included laser point density at the top stand height, laser point
density at 50% of the stand height, and laser point density
Our comparisons of the statistical modeling approaches indi-
at 10% of the stand height. Finally, two specic understory
cated that the RF method was superior in performance. Therefore,
metrics were also added that describe the entire understory
we will only show the results of this method; the performance of
[n(height < 0.5 m)/n(height < 2 m) for all returns] as well as the near-
the other tested modeling approaches (GLMBOOST, SVM, GP and
ground vegetation [n(height < 2 m)/n(height < 60 m) for all returns].
LMSTEP) were inferior to RF in both accuracy (i.e., relative bias)
Our methodology for building area-based models roughly fol-
and precision (i.e., relative RMSE) and therefore were not included
lows those described by Fassnacht et al. (2014a) and Lati et al.
here. The performance of the area-based RF model for each of the
(2015). For each given structural attribute, an initial matrix of
seven structural variables (predicted values) was compared with
response and predictor variables was initially formed, in which the
the values obtained in the conventional ground forest inventory
total number of plots was split into three subgroups of (nearly)
(measured values) (Fig. 2). The area-based RF models yielded vari-
equal sample size to ensure a balanced sampling from the entire
ous rates of prediction error, with best performances for dominant
range of values in the subsequent step. For each subgroup, 500 boot-
height (mean relative RMSE% = 3.44). The mean relative RMSE% of
strap resamples (Efron and Tibshirani, 1994) with replacements
all other structural attributes ranged between 5.45 (mean height)
were drawn, which were nally aggregated across the subgroups
and 13.52 (trees per ha).
to form 500 input datasets for modeling.
The area-based predictions showed overall negligible mean rel-
The input datasets were t by ve commonly applied parametric
ative bias values. The highest biases were observed for volume per
and nonparametric methods: random forests (RF), support vector
ha with a minor value of 0.40% (Fig. 2).
machines (SVM), Gaussian processes (GP), stepwise linear regres-
When we constructed wall-to-wall maps of seven cross-
sion (LMSTEP), and boosted generalized linear model (GLMBOOST).
validated, area-based RF models of seven structural attributes
Methodological details on the applied modeling schemes (except
(Fig. 3), the spatial representation of the structurally heterogeneous
GLMBOOST) are given in Fassnacht et al. (2014a) and Lati et al.
forest stands within the national park was realistically represented
(2015). For GLMBOOST, the reader is referred to Buehlmann (2006).
by excluding the snags from the inventory data prior to modeling.
Three-fold cross validations, each with ve repetitions, were used
This can be best seen in the areas located in northern parts of the
for validating the models. Model performances were assessed with
national park, where vast amounts of snags are present as a result
relative root mean squared error (RMSE) and relative bias from
of periodic bark beetle infestations. The realistic representation of
the mean reference values. The grid-based mean values of 500
the structural attributes when snags were excluded from the inven-
model runs were used for wall-to-wall mapping of the structural
tory data is also apparent in generally low values of coefcients of
attributes and their coefcient of variation on the level of the entire
variation as mapped across the study area (Fig. 4).
national park. To accomplish this, the above-mentioned LiDAR met-
rics were re-calculated on a raster grid, with each cell covering
approximately the area of an inventory plot. 3.2. single tree segment-based models

The single tree segment-based estimations of structural

2.7. Comparison of area-based method, single-tree segmentation
method, and conventional forest inventory
We compared the average results of each structural attribute on
the plot scale estimated using conventional forest inventory, the
single-tree segment-based method, and the area-based method.
To determine how the results were inuenced by the success in
attributes showed generally high but variable levels of correlation
with the conventional ground inventory data (Fig. 5). The unde-
tected tree segments negatively contributed to the correlations.
The single tree segment-based estimations and conventional forest
(ground) inventory values showed correlations ranging between
0.53 (trees per ha) and 0.89 (dominant height) (Fig. 5). Most impor-
tantly, high levels of correlation were observed for the structural

Please cite this article in press as: Lati, H., et al., Forest inventories by LiDAR data: A comparison of single tree segmenta-
tion and metric-based methods for inventories of a heterogeneous temperate forest. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.06.008
G Model
JAG-1117; No. of Pages 13 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Lati et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation xxx (2015) xxxxxx 5

Fig. 1. Summary of the methodology of the study.

attribute volume per ha (up to 0.85). The lowest levels of correlation
observed were for the structural attribute trees per ha.
When plots with undetected tree segments were ignored in the
single tree segmentation method, the correlations between the two
datasets were considerably improved (Appendix 1). For an exam-
ple of dominant height, Pearsons correlations up to 0.87 were
observed.
3.3. Comparison of the area-based and single tree segment-based
models
The single tree segment-based values of structural attributes
showed generally high, yet variable levels of correlation with those
estimated by area-based models. The level of correlation depended
on how successful the single tree segmentation method segments
trees (Fig. 6). Predictions of the area-based model agreed fairly well
with those of the single tree segmentation method; the highest and
lowest Pearsons correlations were observed for dominant height
(0.90) and trees per ha (0.60), respectively. The correlation for trees
per ha was mainly affected by the generally lower number of delin-
eated trees in single tree segment-based estimation than in that
modeled by area-based data.
Despite similar trends, correlations for all the structural
attributes except volume per ha (0.009 decrease) and trees per ha
(0.052 decrease) were higher when undetected single trees were
ignored in the single tree segmentation data (Appendix 2). For
example, the two methods were over 87% correlated for volume
per ha as a prominent allometric attribute. Nevertheless, the occa-
sional undetected tree segments were responsible for some degree
of lack of correlation between the two methods.

Please cite this article in press as: Lati, H., et al., Forest inventories by LiDAR data: A comparison of single tree segmenta-
tion and metric-based methods for inventories of a heterogeneous temperate forest. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.06.008
G Model
JAG-1117; No. of Pages 13 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 H. Lati et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Fig. 2. Performance of cross-validated, area-based, random forest models for seven structural attributes. The individual response is plotted against the predicted values from
500 models based on bootstrap resampling data.

Please cite this article in press as: Lati, H., et al., Forest inventories by LiDAR data: A comparison of single tree segmenta-
tion and metric-based methods for inventories of a heterogeneous temperate forest. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.06.008
G Model
JAG-1117; No. of Pages 13 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Lati et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation xxx (2015) xxxxxx 7

Fig. 3. Wall-to-wall maps of cross-validated, area-based, random forest models of seven structural attributes. The pixel values (gray scale) represent the mean values from
500 models based on bootstrap resampling data.

Please cite this article in press as: Lati, H., et al., Forest inventories by LiDAR data: A comparison of single tree segmenta-
tion and metric-based methods for inventories of a heterogeneous temperate forest. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.06.008
G Model
JAG-1117; No. of Pages 13 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 H. Lati et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Fig. 4. Wall-to-wall maps of prediction coefcients of variation for cross-validated, area-based, random forest models of seven structural attributes. The pixel values (gray
scale) represent the mean prediction coefcients of variation from 500 models based on bootstrap resampling data.

Please cite this article in press as: Lati, H., et al., Forest inventories by LiDAR data: A comparison of single tree segmenta-
tion and metric-based methods for inventories of a heterogeneous temperate forest. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.06.008
G Model
JAG-1117; No. of Pages 13 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Lati et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation xxx (2015) xxxxxx 9

Fig. 5. Comparative agreement between ground inventory data (gray points) and single tree segment-based estimates (black points) of seven structural attributes. The black
points with values = 0 in the single tree segment-based estimations represent the forest plots containing undetected tree segments.

4. Discussion
We evaluated and compared area-based and single tree
segment-based approaches for estimating a set of fundamental for-
est structural attributes on a structurally complex landscape level
in Central Europe. Both methods use full waveform LiDAR metrics.
To estimate the attributes, the area-based method uses plot-scale
metrics as predictor inputs, whereas the single tree segment-based
method uses allometric tree features extracted from previously
delineated tree segments from LiDAR data.

Please cite this article in press as: Lati, H., et al., Forest inventories by LiDAR data: A comparison of single tree segmenta-
tion and metric-based methods for inventories of a heterogeneous temperate forest. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.06.008
G Model
JAG-1117; No. of Pages 13 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 H. Lati et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Fig. 6. Comparative agreement between area-based random forest estimates (gray points) and single tree segment-based estimates (black points) of seven structural
attributes. The black points with values = 0 in the single tree segment-based estimations represent the forest plots containing undetected tree segments.

The area-based method yielded good estimates of all seven
structural attributes. The applied bootstrapping allowed the popu-
lation structure to be approximated from the available sample set,
and the high number of cross-validated models enabled the pre-
diction variance for each given structural attribute to be inferred.
As expected, the RF model outperformed other tested modeling
approaches by returning overall higher relative RMSE and lower
relative bias values. Despite the structural diversity within the
unmanaged stands of the national park and the inherent subsam-
pling effects caused by the RF approach, the area-based predictions

Please cite this article in press as: Lati, H., et al., Forest inventories by LiDAR data: A comparison of single tree segmenta-
tion and metric-based methods for inventories of a heterogeneous temperate forest. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.06.008
G Model
JAG-1117; No. of Pages 13 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Lati et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation xxx (2015) xxxxxx
showed relatively low variances for all attributes. Since the larger
range of a response value can possibly lead to an increased devia-
tion in prediction (Fassnacht et al., 2014a), a reduced range of values
may decrease that deviation. However, this is subject to a good
model t for a given response variable. In our study, all ts yielded in
generally good results, with negligible plot-based prediction biases.
For example, compared to available records from Central European
mixed stands (reviewed by Fassnacht et al., 2014a), our area-based
models returned lower error rates for the standing volume per
ha. One explanation to this will be the use of metrics that were
extracted from full waveform data. Since we included laser point
density at multiple stand height levels among our predictors as a
measure of penetration, we assume this largely reects the differ-
ent structure of coniferous and deciduous stands, particularly when
LiDAR data is recorded during the leaf-on period.
Comparing our results with those of an earlier study from the
same area (Heurich and Thoma, 2008) provides a more intuitive
mean of evaluation for area-based estimations: Our models led to
prediction errors that slightly outperformed those of that study.
However, both studies report values within the same range for
all modeled structural attributes. Especially noteworthy are the
coefcients of variation of the predicted values (Fig. 4); the high-
est prediction variability was observed for stands in the northern
parts of the national park, which have heterogeneous understory
coverage. Even if these stands are not considered, the prediction
coefcients of variation for DBH (both mean and basal area-
weighted) and height (mean, basal area-weighted, and dominant
heights) were often lower than those observed for volume per ha
and trees per ha.
As described in the Section 2.3, snags were excluded from the
inventory data prior to modeling. This obviously increased model
performances which can be attributed to the elimination of the sub-
stantial effects caused by snags, which have a DBH comparable to
that of vital trees but partially or totally lack crowns. This would
in turn affect the distributional behavior of laser beams to vari-
ous degrees. The observed performances for such snags-excluded
sample plots support the ndings of Heurich and Thoma (2008),
who discussed the magnitude of effect caused by large snags on
the accuracy of the estimated height in live stands. However, this
also led to high prediction variability in stands dominated by snags
(Fig. 4), because these stands are then largely unconsidered due to
the absence of sample plots representing snags. Apart from this,
this will not considerably change the estimation of trees per ha,
since the ability of laser metrics to recognize stems is independent
of their state of vitality.
We did not divide the area-based models into strata-specic
models to directly compare area-based estimations and single tree
segmentation estimations. In this regard, automatic recognition
of the tree type in single tree segmentation methods could occa-
sionally yield results different from those determined in a eld
inventory (note the various overall accuracies reaching up to 95%
for species classication of leaf-on LiDAR data as reported by Yao
et al., 2012a). Furthermore, the improved prediction performance
of area-based models by pre-stratied sampling units has pre-
viously been shown to be marginal if the sample size effect is
minimized (Lati et al., 2015).
Nevertheless, area-based models of forest structure generally
lack a built-in tree type recognition method and depend either
on an external algorithm applied to optical imagery (e.g., Lati
et al., 2012; Fassnacht et al., 2014b) or on information from a
ground inventory. This is inconvenient compared to the applied
single tree segment-based method in which a species classication
from LiDAR data was initially implemented. Another, presumably
advantageous feature of the applied single tree method is its abil-
ity to discriminate dead and living trees. This was tested in small
area level but not yet implemented on landscape level (Yao et al.,
Please cite this article in press as: Lati, H., et al., Forest inventories by LiDAR data: A comparison of single tree segmenta-
tion and metric-based methods for inventories of a heterogeneous temperate forest. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.06.008
11
2012b); therefore, the results need to be compared with our area-
based predictions to clarify the applicability of this component in
segment-based approach.
Despite moderate correlations for the structural attribute trees
per ha (Fig. 6), the single tree segment-based estimates corre-
lated well with the area-based estimations for all other structural
attributes. Overall, in terms of trees per ha, the correlation was
affected by the considerably fewer trees estimated by the single
tree segmentation method. This is presumable, owing to the vari-
able success of the single tree segment-based method in detecting
single trees in such richly structured stands (see also Solberg et al.,
2006). Yao et al. (2012a) reported a high rate of correctly segmented
trees in the upper stand layer (86%) and a lower success rate in
intermediate and lower stand layers when leaf-on laser scanner
data were used. This is considered to be one of the main draw-
backs of the method and is partially a function of whether LiDAR
data are collected during the leafed or leaess period. Yao et al.
(2012a) showed that even when normalized cut segmentation is
used, the detection rate in intermediate and lower stand layers did
not exceed 32% and 17%, respectively. This fundamentally differs
from an area-based method, which relies on data of trees from a
ground survey of all vertical stand layers with a DBH greater than
7 cm. Another factor that affects the agreement between the two
tested approaches is under-segmentation, which can arise when
the single tree segment-based method is used for dense young
forest stands; where one single segment could possibly consist of
multiple young trees.
The correlations of the single tree-based estimates and the
area-based estimates for all other allometric stand attributes were
notably high. Larger trees, particularly broad-leaved trees, in the
highest stand layer contribute greatly to the available standing vol-
ume and biomass (e.g., Lutz et al., 2012). In a LiDAR inventory, this
contribution is yet only marginally affected by how successfully
the individual trunks in the understory are detected. The single
tree segment-based and area-based results showed notably higher
correlations by ignoring the undetected trees in segment-based
approach. However, one should not neglect this as a potential draw-
back which can affect the practical application of such method for
e.g., future tree-based growth simulations. A tree-based growth
model does not only focus on growth projection of mature trees
from the overstory of stands, but should also incorporate the
growth of understory elements including seedlings, saplings and
tree regeneration (e.g., Falkowski et al., 2010; Eerikinen et al.,
2014). This drawback could be minimized by improving the single
tree detection rate in lower stand layers. Nevertheless, the single
tree segment-based method applied here is able to support applied
forest inventory by providing broadly required forest attributes
on single tree level and over wide areas such as BFNP. Having
this in mind and by comparing area-based predictions to ground
inventory data suggests that the single tree segment-based esti-
mates still provide evidence of its high potential as a practical tool
in landscape-level forest inventory. This method relies solely on
LiDAR data and temporarily stable empirical information (e.g., allo-
metric equations) and therefore does not entail the use of ground
inventory data.
However, the high potential of segment-based method might
be partially site specic and thus needs to be tested in struc-
turally different mixed stands, especially with various degrees
of coniferous/deciduous mixtures, provided that tree allometries
are comparable. In addition, site-specic differences cannot be
neglected because these factors (e.g., increasing altitude) can inu-
ence the existing allometric relationships amongst tree height,
DBH and growing stock. Our results also revealed that improv-
ing the single tree-based method by, e.g., minimizing the number
of undetected trees, can improve its correlation with area-based
estimations (Appendix 2).
G Model
JAG-1117; No. of Pages 13 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 H. Lati et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation xxx (2015) xxxxxx
The different levels of correlation between single tree segment-
based estimates and ground inventory data also suggest similar
trends: Except for the results obtained for trees per ha, the Pear-
sons correlations were within a satisfactory range (r2 = 0.610.89,
as shown in Fig. 5), which strongly supports their application
as a surrogate for ground inventories on the tested landscape
level. However, trees per ha showed lower level of association.
In presence of an enhanced tree detection (which would enable a
higher detection rate in lower stand stories), the agreement would
unquestionably boost, since the major obstacle here seems to be
the underestimated rate of detected trees in the segment-based
approach. An alternative would be to estimate undetected trees
using known tree distribution functions (see Maltamo et al., 2004).
The results obtained with LiDAR data might be improved if a higher
point density were used, which would help detect small trees and
snags, or if data were collected during the leaf-off period, which
could improve detection of deciduous trees.
The correlations between single tree segment-based estimates
and ground inventory data could also be slightly decreased by slight
positional inaccuracies of ground inventory data, and in turn area-
based predicted data. The sample set used here was collected with
differential GPS devices and contained positional errors of mul-
tiple degrees, ranging from 0.1 to 5 m (with 100 points being
more accurate than 50 cm), depending on the number of solutions
available at the time of sampling. We acknowledge that this might
have introduced an unknown degree of uncertainty in our mea-
surements. However, the global navigation satellite system (GNSS)
positional accuracy for a state-wide Bavarian forest inventory is
9.7 m on average (Springer, 2014). Therefore, the positional error
in our study fully lies within the acceptable range for operational
surveys.
5. Conclusions
We evaluated two main methods of estimating structural forest
attributes single tree segment-based and area-based method
that embrace various degrees of cost effectiveness for landscape-
level forest inventories. The area-based model yielded outstanding
performances for nearly all structural attributes. The wall-to-wall
pixel maps fully represented the structural diversity of the forest
stands and enabled visualization of the modeling uncertainty. Our
results suggested that both methods are appropriate for opera-
tional forest inventories, and each method has some advantages
over the other. The area-based method lacks a built-in species
discrimination component, whereas the single tree segmentation
method yields some inconsistencies caused by problems in detect-
ing single trees in the understory and in young, dense forest stands.
This drawback can constrain its applicability for practical inven-
tory applications such as tree-based growth models. However, this
approach still enables to provide a set of essential forest attributes
on single tree scale for relatively big areas. The single tree segmen-
tation method has recently been further developed by integrating
an algorithm to detect snags (Polewski et al., 2015a,b). This updated
method should in the future be compared to our models here, in
which snags were previously excluded from the inventory data.
Nevertheless, this component needs to be further rened by, e.g.,
including external spectral information from aerial imagery. In
addition, care must be taken in improving the tree detection algo-
rithm for structurally rich stands, e.g., by using LiDAR data from
inventories of trees during the leaess period. Tree species detec-
tion in both area-based and single tree segmentation algorithms
could be enhanced by incorporating terrestrial laser scanning, at
least for a number of structurally representative stands. A fusion
of area-based and single tree segment-based methods would fur-
ther pave the way for operational forest inventories by combining
Please cite this article in press as: Lati, H., et al., Forest inventories by LiDAR data: A comparison of single tree segmenta-
tion and metric-based methods for inventories of a heterogeneous temperate forest. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.06.008
detection of single trees in mature stands and in the overstory with
area-based models of 3D structure across old and young stands,
Based on our results, we recommend the use of LiDAR for prac-
tical applications in forestry and conservation at the landscape
scale in temperate stands similar to those of the Bavarian For-
est National Park. Especially the single tree segmentation method
offers a cost-effective alternative to conventional forest invento-
ries. For this national park, the effort of recording data can be
reduced from several months to several days, decreasing the total
costs by up to 90%. The new methodology offers more informa-
tion than conventional forest inventories. In particular, the single
tree segment-based method opens up new possibilities in digital
forestry, e.g., monitoring of forest stands, evaluating silvicultural
regimes, integral monitoring of forest biodiversity and, subject to
renements, applying single tree-based growth models.
Acknowledgements
We thank Dr. Peter Biber (Chair of Forest Growth, Technis-
che Universitt Mnchen) for providing scripts on species-specic
models of standing volume; the eld crew, in particular Olaf Schu-
bert, for collecting required eld data; and Prof. Peter Krzystek
(Hochschule fr angewandte Wissenschaften Mnchen) for pro-
viding the database and results of the single tree segmentation
analysis. Karen A. Brune undertook a professional English language
editing.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.06.008
References
Boncina, A., 2011. Conceptual approaches to integrate nature conservation into
forest management: a Central European perspective. Int. Forest. Rev. 13, 1322.
Buehlmann, P., 2006. Boosting for high-dimensional linear models. Ann. Stat. 34
(2), 559583.
Drake, J.B., Dubayah, R.O., Knox, R.G., Clark, D.B., Blair, J.B., 2002. Sensitivity of
large-footprint LiDAR to canopy structure and biomass in a neotropical
rainforest. Remote Sens. Environ. 81 (23), 378392.
Eerikinen, K., Valkonen, S., Saska, T., 2014. Ingrowth, survival and height growth
of small trees in uneven-aged Picea abies stands in southern Finland. For.
Ecosyst. 1, 5, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2197-5620-1-5
Efron, B., Tibshirani, R.J., 1994. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. CRC Press, 465 pp.
ISBN 0-412-04231-2.
Ewald, M., Claudia Dupke, C., Heurich, M., Mller, J., Reineking, B., 2014. The
application of LiDAR remote sensing and activity sensors to analyze winter
habitat selection of European roe deer. Forestry 2014 (5), 13741390.
Falkowski, M.J., Hudak, A.T., Crookston, N.L., Gessler, P.E., Uebler, E.H., Smith,
A.M.S., 2010. Landscape-scale parametrization of a tree-level forest growth
mdoel: a k-nearest neighbor imputation approach incorporating LiDAR data.
Can. J. For. Res. 40, 184199.
Fassnacht, F.E., Hartig, F., Lati, H., Berger, C., Hernndez, J., Corvaln, P., Koch, B.,
2014a. Importance of sample size, data type and prediction method for remote
sensing-based estimations of aboveground forest biomass. Remote Sens.
Environ. 154, 102114.
Fassnacht, F.E., Neumann, C., Frster, M., Buddenbaum, H., Ghosh, A., Clasen, A.,
Joshi, P.K., Koch, B., 2014b. Comparison of feature reduction algorithms for
classifying tree species with hyperspectral data on three Central European test
sites. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 7 (6), 25472561.
Franz, F., 1971. Grundlagen und Verfahren standortbezogener Leistungsschtzung.
Forschungsbericht der FFA Mnchen (2) (In German).
Gobakken, T., Korhonen, L., Nsset, E., 2013. Laser-assisted selection of eld plots
for an area-based forest inventory. Silva Fenn. 47 (5), id 943.
Heurich, M., 2006. Evaluierung und Entwicklung von Methoden zur
automatisierten Erfassung von Waldstrukturen aus Daten ugzeuggetragener
Fernerkundungssensoren. Forstlicher Forschungsbericht Mnchen Nr. 202,
ISBN 3-933506-33-6, https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/node?id=603731 (accessed
10.02.15.).
Heurich, M., Neufanger, M., 2005. Die Wlder des Nationalparks Bayerischer Wald.
Ergebnisse der Waldinventur 2002/2003 im geschichtlichen und
waldkologischen Kontext. Wissenschaftliche Schriftenreihe der
Nationalparkverwaltung Bayerischer Wald, Band 16, 175 (In German).
G Model
JAG-1117; No. of Pages 13 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Lati et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation xxx (2015) xxxxxx
Heurich, M., 2008. Automatic recognition and measurement of single trees based
on data from airborne laser scanning over the richly structured natural forests
of the Bavarian Forest National Park. Forest Ecol. Manage. 255, 24162433.
Heurich, M., Thoma, F., 2008. Estimation of forestry stand parameters using laser
scanning data in temperate, structurally rich natural European beech (Fagus
sylvatica) and Norway spruce (Picea abies) forests. Forestry 81 (5), 645661.
Hijmans, R., VanEtten, J., 2012. R-package Raster user guide. R Development Core
Team. Available at: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/raster/raster.pdf
(accessed 10.02.15.).
Hyypp, J., Hyypp, H., Leckie, D., Gougeon, F., Yu, X., Maltamo, M., 2008. Review of
methods of small-footprint airborne laser scanning for extracting forest
inventory data in boreal forests. Int. J. Remote Sens. 29 (5), 13391366.
Johnson, K.D., Birdsey, R., Finley, A.O., Swantaran, A., Dubayah, R., Wayson, C.,
Riemann, R., 2014. Integrating forest inventory and analysis data into a
LiDAR-based carbon monitoring system. Carbon Balance Manage. 9 (3), 11pp.
Karatzoglou, A., Smola, A., Hornik, K., Zeileis, A., 2004. Kernlab- An S4 package or
kernel methods in R. J. Stat. Softw. 11 (9), 20p.
Kennel, E. 1973. Bayerische Waldinventur. Forstliche Forschungsberichte
Mnchen. Nr. 11 Ludwig Maximilians Universitt, Mnchen (In German).
Kuhn, M., Johnson, K., 2013. Applied Predictive Modeling. Springer
Science + Business Media, 995 New York.
Lausch, A., Heurich, M., Fahse, L., 2013. Spatio-temporal infestation patterns of Ips
typographus (L.) in the Bavarian Forest National Park, Germany. Ecol. Indic. 31,
7381.
Lati, H., 2012. Characterizing forest structure by means of remote sensing: a
review. In: Escalante, B. (Ed.), In Remote Sensing: Advanced Techniques and
Platforms. Intech Open Access Publisher, Zagreb, Croatia, pp. 428.
Lati, H., Koch, B., 2012. Evaluation of most similar neighbour and random forest
methods for imputing forest inventory variables using data from target and
auxiliary stands. Int. J. Remote Sens. 33 (21), 66686694.
Lati, H., Nothdurft, A., Straub, C., Koch, B., 2012. Modelling stratied forest
attributes using optical/LiDAR features in a central European landscape. Int. J.
Digit. Earth 5 (2), 106132.
Lati, H., Fassnacht, F.E., Hartig, F., Berger, C., Hernndez, J., Corvaln, P., Koch, B.,
2015. Stratied aboveground forest biomass estimation by remote sensing
data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 38, 229241.
Lutz, J.A., Larson, A.J., Swanson, M.E., Freund, J.A., 2012. The ecological importance
of large-diameter trees in a temperate mixed-conifer forest. PLoS One 7 (5),
e36131, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036131
Maltamo, M., Eerikinen, K., Pitknen, J., Hyypp, J., Vehmas, M., 2004. Estimation
of timber volume and stem density based on scanning laser altimetry and
expected tree size distribution functions. Remote Sens. Environ. 90 (3),
319330.
McElhinny, C., Gibbons, P., Brack, C., Bauhus, J., 2005. Forest and woodland stand
structural complexity Its denition and measurement. For. Ecol. Manage. 218,
124.
McRoberts, R.E., Tomppo, E.O., 2007. Remote sensing support for national forest
inventories. Remote Sens. Environ. 110, 412419.
McRoberts, R.E., Tomppo, E.O., Nsset, E., 2010. Advances and emerging issues in
national forest inventories. Scand. J. For. Res. 25, 368381.
Nsset, E., 2004. Practical large-scale forest inventory using a small-footprint
airborne scanning laser. Scand. J. For. Res. 19, 164179.
Nsset, E., Gobakken, T., Holmgren, J., Hyypp, H., Hyypp, J., Maltamo, M., Nilsson,
M., Olsson, H., Persson, ., Sderman, U., 2004. Laser scanning of forest
resources: the Nordic experience. Scand. J. For. Res. 19, 482499.
Packaln, P., Maltamo, M., 2006. Predicting the plot volume by tree species using
airborne laser scanning and aerial photographs. For. Sci. 52 (6), 611622.
Polewski, P., Yao, W., Heurich, M., Krzystek, P., Stilla, U., 2015. Active learning
approach to detecting standing dead trees from ALS point clouds combined
with aerial infrared imagery. IEEE/ISPRS Workshop Looking from above: When
Earth observation meets vision - EARTHVISION 2015 in conjunction with
CVPR2015, Boston, USA.
Please cite this article in press as: Lati, H., et al., Forest inventories by LiDAR data: A comparison of single tree segmenta-
tion and metric-based methods for inventories of a heterogeneous temperate forest. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. (2015),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.06.008
13
Polewski, P., Yao, W., Heurich, M., Krzystek, P., Stilla, U., 2015. Detection of single
standing dead trees from aerial color infrared imagery by segmentation with
shape and intensity priors. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote
Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. 43. W4 181-188 Part: 2.
R Development Core Team, 2015. R: a language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. http://
www.R-project.org. (accessed 10.02.15.).
Reitberger, J., Schnrr, C., Krzystek, P., Stilla, U., 2009. 3D segmentation of single
trees exploiting full waveform LiDAR data. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens.
64, 561574.
Seidl, R., Schelhaas, M.-J., Rammer, W., Verkerk, P.J., 2014. Increasing forest
disturbances in Europe and their impact on carbon storage. Nat. Clim. Change
4, 806810.
Skowronski, N.S., Lister, A.J. 2012. The utility of LiDAR for large area forest
inventory applications. Proceedings of Moving from stands to trends: Forest
inventory and analysis symposium 2012. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-105.
Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern
Research Station, USA.
Solberg, S., Nsset, E., Bollandss, O.M., 2006. Single tree segmentation using
airborne laser scanner data in a structurally heterogeneous spruce forest.
Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 72, 13691378.
Springer, S., 2014. Zur Gte von GNSS-Einmessungen im Wald bei Forstinventuren.
B.Sc thesis at the faculty of forest sciences and resource management.
Technische Universitt Mnchen, Freising-Germany, 65 S (in German).
Straub, C., Tian, J., Seitz, R., Reinartz, P., 2013. Assessment of Cartosat-1 and
WorldView-2 stereo imagery in combination with a LiDAR-DTM for timber
volume estimation in a highlystructured forest in Germany. Forestry 86,
463473.
Tierney, L., Rossini, A.J., Li, N., Sevcikova, H., 2013. snow: Simple Network of
Workstations. R Development Core Team. Available at: http://cran.r-project.
org/web/packages/snow/snow.pdf. (accessed 10.02.15.).
Treuhaft, R.N., Goncalves, F.G., Drake, J.B., Chapman, B.D., dos Santos, J.R., Dutra,
L.V., Graca, P.M.L.A., Purcell, G.H., 2010. Biomass estimation in a tropical wet
forest using Fourier transforms of proles from lidar or interferometric SAR.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L23403.
Tsui, O.W., Coops, N.C., Wulder, M.A., Marshall, P.L., 2013. Integrating airborne
LiDAR and space-borne radar via multivariate kriging to estimate
above-ground biomass. Remote Sens. Environ. 139, 340352.
White, J., Wulder, M.A., Varhola, A., Vastaranta, M., Coops, N.C., Cook, B.D., Pitt, D.,
Woods, M., 2013. A best practices guide for generating forest inventory
attributes from airborne laser scanning data using an area-based approach.
Information Report FI-X-010. The Canadian Wood Fibre Centre, Victoria,
British Columbia. ISBN 978-1-100-22385-8.
Wulder, M.A., Coops, N.C., Hudak, A.T., Morsdorf, F., Nelson, R., Newnham, G.,
Vastaranta, M., 2013. Status and prospects for LiDAR remote sensing of
forested ecosystems. Can. J. Remote Sens. 39 (81), 8185.
Yao, W., Krzystek, P., Heurich, M., 2012a. Tree species classication and estimation
of stem volume and DBH based on single tree extraction by exploiting airborne
full-waveform LiDAR data. Remote Sens. Environ. 123, 368380.
Yao, W., Krzystek, P., Heurich, M., 2012b. Identifying standing dead trees in forest
areas based on 3D single tree detection from full waveform lidar data. ISPRS
Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. I-7, 359364.
Yao, W., Krull, J., Krzystek, P., Heurich, M., 2014. Sensitivity analysis of 3D
individual tree detection from LiDAR point clouds of temperate forests. Forests
5, 11221142.