Measuring tree height: a quantitative comparison of two common field methods in a moist tropical forest

227 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Optimal Altitude, Overlap, and Weather Conditions for Computer Vision UAV Estimates of Forest Structure (2015, background): “Field based estimates of tree height have been found to have significant error (1 m to >6 m) owing to the challenges in observing the top of trees from the ground below [70–72].”
Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees (2014, background): “However, tree height has often been ignored in carbon-accounting programs because measuring tree height accurately is difficult in closed-canopy forests (Hunter et al., 2013; Larjavaara & Muller-Landau, 2013).”
Emergent crowns and light-use complementarity lead to global maximum biomass and leaf area in Sequoia sempervirens forests (2016, methodology): “…(2) vertical distance laser shots from a known height in a tree with a tape measure stretched from top to bottom and later corrected for base height differences, (3) sine method (sensu Larjavaara and Muller-Landau, 2013) with survey laser, and (4) extracting tree heights from LiDAR point clouds.”
Assessing Precision in Conventional Field Measurements of Individual Tree Attributes (2017, background): “According to Larjavaara and Muller-Landau [61], the tree height is difficult to measure accurately for standing trees in the field.”