Abstract
Tree inventories require rapid, accurate measurements of stem diameter at breast height (DBH) and precise tree locations to support monitoring, planning, and informed decision-making. We evaluated a smartphone-based LiDAR app (SBLA), Forest Scanner, against (i) a diameter tape for DBH and (ii) a Vertex ultrasonic device for spatial coordinates. Across DBH of 725 trees, the LiDAR closely matched diameter tape measurements: discrepancies >5 cm occurred in 10.5% and > 10 cm in 3.5% of trees. Errors were concentrated in trees with smaller DBH, where occasional overestimation by SBLA arose from point-cloud misfitting. For medium and large trees, agreement was consistently high. Tree coordinates from SBLA and the ultrasonic device were broadly comparable at fine scales. Field efficiency was substantially improved: a 1,000 m 2 plot with 70–80 trees required ∼2 hours using an ultrasonic device and diameter tape versus ∼20 minutes (one person) with SBLA, an ∼85–90% reduction in person-hours. Current limitations of SBLA are primarily software-related (stability, data handling, low-light performance). Overall, SBLA offers an efficient, auditable, and operationally relevant tool for tree inventories, with utility for rapidly updating DBH and spatial data used in management, planning, and asset databases.
Full text
1,399 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
Abstract
Tree inventories require rapid, accurate measurements of stem diameter at breast height (DBH) and precise tree locations to support monitoring, planning, and informed decision-making. We evaluated a smartphone-based LiDAR app (SBLA), Forest Scanner, against (i) a diameter tape for DBH and (ii) a Vertex ultrasonic device for spatial coordinates. Across DBH of 725 trees, the LiDAR closely matched diameter tape measurements: discrepancies >5 cm occurred in 10.5% and > 10 cm in 3.5% of trees. Errors were concentrated in trees with smaller DBH, where occasional overestimation by SBLA arose from point-cloud misfitting. For medium and large trees, agreement was consistently high. Tree coordinates from SBLA and the ultrasonic device were broadly comparable at fine scales. Field efficiency was substantially improved: a 1,000 m2 plot with 70–80 trees required ∼2 hours using an ultrasonic device and diameter tape versus ∼20 minutes (one person) with SBLA, an ∼85–90% reduction in person-hours. Current limitations of SBLA are primarily software-related (stability, data handling, low-light performance). Overall, SBLA offers an efficient, auditable, and operationally relevant tool for tree inventories, with utility for rapidly updating DBH and spatial data used in management, planning, and asset databases.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.