A Comparative Evaluation of Threshold Segmentation and LiDAR for Sawmill Residue Volume Estimation
The sawn timber production process generates up to 63% of residues during primary processing in sawmills. For this industry, the devaluation and disposal of these residues remain significant challenges; proper management requires a more accurate quantification of the volume. This study evaluates and compares two indirect methods for estimating the volume of stacked residues: one based on image processing and the other on terrestrial LiDAR technology. Residues of Pinus spp. from a sawmill were used, with their actual volume determined using a xylometer. The image-based method, which uses threshold-based segmentation, achieved a R2 = 0.64 and RMSE = 0.006 m3. In contrast, the LiDAR-based method, which derives measurements directly from 3D reconstruction, obtained an R2 = 0.506 and RMSE = 0.009 m3. Despite these differences, ANOVA testing (p > 0.05) indicated no statistically significant differences between the methods. The results suggest that both approaches may serve as preliminary tools for forest residue quantification and provide a solid foundation for future research aimed at developing field-applicable technological solutions.
Authors
- Pablito Marcelo López‐Serrano (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0640-0606)
- Artemio Carrillo-Parra (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0285-5224)
- Juan García-Quezada (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5139-8731)
- Pedro Antonio Domínguez-Calleros (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9520-2817)
- Jorge Luis Compeán-Aguirre (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5700-3526)
- Leonardo Vásquez-Ibarra (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8514-8685)
- Carlos Borrego-Núñez (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0173-6594)
Institutions
- Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango (MX)
- Catholic University of the Maule (CL)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Forests
- Published
- 2025-06-22
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.3390/f16071045
- Primary Topic
- Mineral Processing and Grinding
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00