Adjudicating Perspectives on Forest Structure: How Do Airborne, Terrestrial, and Mobile Lidar-Derived Estimates Compare?

Applications of lidar in ecosystem conservation and management continue to expand as technology has rapidly evolved. An accounting relative accuracy errors among platforms within a range forest types structural configurations was needed. Within ponderosa pine northern Arizona, we compare vegetation attributes at the tree-, plot-, stand-scales derived from three platforms: fixed-wing airborne (ALS), fixed-location terrestrial (TLS), hand-held mobile laser scanning (MLS). We present methodology segment individual trees TLS MLS datasets, incorporating eigen-value density metrics locate trees, then assigning point returns using graph-theory shortest-path approach. Overall, found consistently provided more accurate tree- (e.g., mean absolute error for DBH cm 4.8, 5.0, 9.1 MLS, ALS, respectively) plot-scale R2 field observed lidar-derived basal area, m2 ha?1, 0.986, 0.974, 0.851 TLS, compared ALS TLS. While data produced estimates similar often underpredicted values due occlusion. Additionally, tree height larger yet missed small (?35 cm). canopy cover landscape up 50 m plot center. tended underpredict both patch with constant bias Taking full advantage minimal occlusion effects, best plot-based metrics, providing volume, biomass, cover. logistically simple, quickly acquirable, area inventories, assessments, monitoring activities. suggest further work exploring active use inventory.