Terrestrial vs. UAV-Based Remote Measurements in Log Volume Estimation
This study compared oak butt-log volume estimations gained through terrestrial measurements in the forest stand with a remote approach using an unmanned aerial system (UAS) and photogrammetric post-processing. Terrestrial measurements were conducted in the lowland part of Croatia after a completed m...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2023-10-01
|
| Series: | Remote Sensing |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/21/5143 |
| _version_ | 1797631306462396416 |
|---|---|
| author | Andreja Đuka Ivica Papa Mihael Lovrinčević Zoran Bumber Tomislav Poršinsky Kristijan Tomljanović |
| author_facet | Andreja Đuka Ivica Papa Mihael Lovrinčević Zoran Bumber Tomislav Poršinsky Kristijan Tomljanović |
| author_sort | Andreja Đuka |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This study compared oak butt-log volume estimations gained through terrestrial measurements in the forest stand with a remote approach using an unmanned aerial system (UAS) and photogrammetric post-processing. Terrestrial measurements were conducted in the lowland part of Croatia after a completed motor–manual final felling of a 140-year-old even-aged oak stand. Butt-logs’ volumes were estimated with four methods: the sectioning method and Huber’s, Smailan’s and Riecke–Newton’s methods. Measuring diameters and lengths and estimating volumes remotely were based on orthophotos using four different software: ArcGIS, QGIS, AutoCAD and Pix4D. Riecke–Newton’s method for volume estimation had the smallest relative bias of +1.74%, while for Huber’s method it was −8.07% and with Smailan’s method it was +21.23%. Log volume estimations gained remotely via ArcGIS and QGIS were, in the case of Huber’s method, at +3.63% relative bias, and in the case of Riecke–Newton’s method at +1.39% relative bias. Volume estimation using the sectioning method resulted in a total of 51.334 m<sup>3</sup> for the whole sample, while the sectioning method performed with the help of AutoCAD resulted in 55.151 m<sup>3</sup>, i.e., +7.43% relative bias. Volume estimation of thirty oak butt-logs given by Pix4D software (version 4.8.4) resulted in +9.34% relative bias (56.134 m<sup>3</sup>). Comparing terrestrial measurements and the volume estimations based on them to those gained remotely showed a very high correlation in all cases. This study showed that using a UAS for log volume estimation surveys has the potential for broader use, especially after final felling in even-aged forests where the remaining trees in the stand would not block photogrammetric analysis. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T11:21:59Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-07b7f8092fe94554b8a5723f0a738231 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2072-4292 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T11:21:59Z |
| publishDate | 2023-10-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Remote Sensing |
| spelling | doaj.art-07b7f8092fe94554b8a5723f0a7382312023-11-10T15:11:12ZengMDPI AGRemote Sensing2072-42922023-10-011521514310.3390/rs15215143Terrestrial vs. UAV-Based Remote Measurements in Log Volume EstimationAndreja Đuka0Ivica Papa1Mihael Lovrinčević2Zoran Bumber3Tomislav Poršinsky4Kristijan Tomljanović5Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Institute of Forest Engineering, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, CroatiaFaculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Institute of Forest Engineering, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, CroatiaFaculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Institute of Forest Engineering, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, CroatiaCroatian Forests Ltd., 10000 Zagreb, CroatiaFaculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Institute of Forest Engineering, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, CroatiaFaculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Institute of Forest Protection and Wildlife Management, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, CroatiaThis study compared oak butt-log volume estimations gained through terrestrial measurements in the forest stand with a remote approach using an unmanned aerial system (UAS) and photogrammetric post-processing. Terrestrial measurements were conducted in the lowland part of Croatia after a completed motor–manual final felling of a 140-year-old even-aged oak stand. Butt-logs’ volumes were estimated with four methods: the sectioning method and Huber’s, Smailan’s and Riecke–Newton’s methods. Measuring diameters and lengths and estimating volumes remotely were based on orthophotos using four different software: ArcGIS, QGIS, AutoCAD and Pix4D. Riecke–Newton’s method for volume estimation had the smallest relative bias of +1.74%, while for Huber’s method it was −8.07% and with Smailan’s method it was +21.23%. Log volume estimations gained remotely via ArcGIS and QGIS were, in the case of Huber’s method, at +3.63% relative bias, and in the case of Riecke–Newton’s method at +1.39% relative bias. Volume estimation using the sectioning method resulted in a total of 51.334 m<sup>3</sup> for the whole sample, while the sectioning method performed with the help of AutoCAD resulted in 55.151 m<sup>3</sup>, i.e., +7.43% relative bias. Volume estimation of thirty oak butt-logs given by Pix4D software (version 4.8.4) resulted in +9.34% relative bias (56.134 m<sup>3</sup>). Comparing terrestrial measurements and the volume estimations based on them to those gained remotely showed a very high correlation in all cases. This study showed that using a UAS for log volume estimation surveys has the potential for broader use, especially after final felling in even-aged forests where the remaining trees in the stand would not block photogrammetric analysis.https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/21/5143butt-log volumelogs’ diameterlogs’ lengthvolume estimation methods |
| spellingShingle | Andreja Đuka Ivica Papa Mihael Lovrinčević Zoran Bumber Tomislav Poršinsky Kristijan Tomljanović Terrestrial vs. UAV-Based Remote Measurements in Log Volume Estimation Remote Sensing butt-log volume logs’ diameter logs’ length volume estimation methods |
| title | Terrestrial vs. UAV-Based Remote Measurements in Log Volume Estimation |
| title_full | Terrestrial vs. UAV-Based Remote Measurements in Log Volume Estimation |
| title_fullStr | Terrestrial vs. UAV-Based Remote Measurements in Log Volume Estimation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Terrestrial vs. UAV-Based Remote Measurements in Log Volume Estimation |
| title_short | Terrestrial vs. UAV-Based Remote Measurements in Log Volume Estimation |
| title_sort | terrestrial vs uav based remote measurements in log volume estimation |
| topic | butt-log volume logs’ diameter logs’ length volume estimation methods |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/21/5143 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT andrejađuka terrestrialvsuavbasedremotemeasurementsinlogvolumeestimation AT ivicapapa terrestrialvsuavbasedremotemeasurementsinlogvolumeestimation AT mihaellovrincevic terrestrialvsuavbasedremotemeasurementsinlogvolumeestimation AT zoranbumber terrestrialvsuavbasedremotemeasurementsinlogvolumeestimation AT tomislavporsinsky terrestrialvsuavbasedremotemeasurementsinlogvolumeestimation AT kristijantomljanovic terrestrialvsuavbasedremotemeasurementsinlogvolumeestimation |