Comparison of UAV-Based LiDAR and Photogrammetric Point Cloud for Individual Tree Species Classification of Urban Areas

UAV LiDAR and digital aerial photogrammetry (DAP) have shown great performance in forest inventory due to their advantage in three-dimensional information extraction. Many studies have compared their performance in individual tree segmentation and structural parameters extraction (e.g. tree height). However, few studies have compared their performance in tree species classification. Therefore, we have compared the performance of UAV LiDAR and DAP-based point clouds in individual tree species classification with the following steps: (1) Point cloud data processing: Denoising, smoothing, and normalization were conducted on LiDAR and DAP-based point cloud data separately. (2) Feature extraction: Spectral, structural, and texture features were extracted from the pre-processed LiDAR and DAP-based point cloud data. (3) Individual tree segmentation: The marked watershed algorithm was used to segment individual trees on canopy height models (CHM) derived from LiDAR and DAP data, respectively. (4) Pixel-based tree species classification: The random forest classifier (RF) was used to classify urban tree species with features derived from LiDAR and DAP data separately. (5) Individual tree species classification: Based on the segmented individual tree boundaries and pixel-based classification results, the majority filtering method was implemented to obtain the final individual tree species classification results. (6) Fused with hyperspectral data: LiDAR-hyperspectral and DAP-hyperspectral fused data were used to conduct individual tree species classification. (7) Accuracy assessment and comparison: The accuracy of the above results were assessed and compared. The results indicate that LiDAR outperformed DAP in individual tree segmentation (F-score 0.83 vs. 0.79), while DAP achieved higher pixel-level classification accuracy (73.83% vs. 57.32%) due to spectral-textural features. Fusion with hyperspectral data narrowed the gap, with LiDAR reaching 95.98% accuracy in individual tree classification. Our findings suggest that DAP offers a cost-effective alternative for urban forest management, balancing accuracy and operational costs.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Remote Sensing
Published
2025-03-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17071212
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.20

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of UAV-Based LiDAR and Photogrammetric Point Cloud for Individual Tree Species Classification of Urban Areas

Cong Zhou, Qixia Man, Zhuang Tan, Baolei Zhang et al.
4 citations
Remote Sensing
Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
3.20
article

Comparison of UAV-Based LiDAR and Photogrammetric Point Cloud for Individual Tree Species Classification of Urban Areas

Cong Zhou, Qixia Man, Zhuang Tan, Baolei Zhang, Qian Yu, Pinliang Dong, Jingru Wu, Chunhui Liu, Xinming Yang, Haijian Liu, Changyin Han
article en
4 citations

Abstract

UAV LiDAR and digital aerial photogrammetry (DAP) have shown great performance in forest inventory due to their advantage in three-dimensional information extraction. Many studies have compared their performance in individual tree segmentation and structural parameters extraction (e.g. tree height). However, few studies have compared their performance in tree species classification. Therefore, we have compared the performance of UAV LiDAR and DAP-based point clouds in individual tree species classification with the following steps: (1) Point cloud data processing: Denoising, smoothing, and normalization were conducted on LiDAR and DAP-based point cloud data separately. (2) Feature extraction: Spectral, structural, and texture features were extracted from the pre-processed LiDAR and DAP-based point cloud data. (3) Individual tree segmentation: The marked watershed algorithm was used to segment individual trees on canopy height models (CHM) derived from LiDAR and DAP data, respectively. (4) Pixel-based tree species classification: The random forest classifier (RF) was used to classify urban tree species with features derived from LiDAR and DAP data separately. (5) Individual tree species classification: Based on the segmented individual tree boundaries and pixel-based classification results, the majority filtering method was implemented to obtain the final individual tree species classification results. (6) Fused with hyperspectral data: LiDAR-hyperspectral and DAP-hyperspectral fused data were used to conduct individual tree species classification. (7) Accuracy assessment and comparison: The accuracy of the above results were assessed and compared. The results indicate that LiDAR outperformed DAP in individual tree segmentation (F-score 0.83 vs. 0.79), while DAP achieved higher pixel-level classification accuracy (73.83% vs. 57.32%) due to spectral-textural features. Fusion with hyperspectral data narrowed the gap, with LiDAR reaching 95.98% accuracy in individual tree classification. Our findings suggest that DAP offers a cost-effective alternative for urban forest management, balancing accuracy and operational costs.

Remote SensingVol. 17(7)
University of North Texas (US), Hangzhou Normal University (CN), Shandong Normal University (CN), Shandong Provincial Communications Planning and Design Institute (China) (CN)
National Natural Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, National Key Research and Development Program of China
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
3.20
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.