Field-measured canopy height may not be as accurate and heritable as believed: evidence from advanced 3D sensing

Zang, Jingrong; Jin, Shichao; Zhang, Songyin; Li, Qing; Mu, Yue; Li, Ziyu; Li, Shaochen; Wang, Xiao; Su, Yanjun; Jiang, Dong

doi:10.1186/s13007-023-01012-2

Plant Methods

Table 3 Detailed statistics on comparing canopy height measurement methods

From: Field-measured canopy height may not be as accurate and heritable as believed: evidence from advanced 3D sensing

CH group	RMSE, m (RMSE%)	Bias, m (Bias%)	r	RMSE, m (RMSE%)	Bias, m (Bias%)	r
	TLS vs. FM			BLS vs. FM
CH1	0.06 (10.92)	0.05 (10.24)	0.66	0.07 (13.65)	0.06 (12.60)	0.65
CH2	0.07 (10.48)	0.05 (6.79)	0.56	0.08 (10.96)	0.06 (7.85)	0.54
CH3	0.08 (9.57)	0.01 (0.95)	0.49	0.08 (8.75)	0.01 (1.48)	0.52
CH4	0.09 (7.98)	0.01 (0.86)	0.59	0.08 (7.58)	0.01 (0.99)	0.64
Mean	0.08 (9.74)	0.03 (4.71)	0.58	0.08 (10.23)	0.04 (5.73)	0.59
	GLS vs. FM			DAP vs. FM
CH1	0.06 (11.39)	− 0.09 (− 17.96)	0.64	0.07 (12.91)	0.04 (8.15)	0.71
CH2	0.07 (9.82)	− 0.11 (− 15.49)	0.56	0.09 (13.10)	0.05 (6.76)	0.51
CH3	–	–	–	0.11 (12.79)	0.00 (− 0.17)	0.36
CH4	–	–	–	0.14 (12.25)	0.02 (− 1.49)	0.50
Mean	0.06 (10.6)	− 0.10 (− 16.72)	0.60	0.10 (12.76)	0.02 (3.31)	0.52
	TLS vs. BLS			TLS vs. GLS
CH1	0.05 (8.89)	0.01 (2.15)	0.84	0.03 (5.32)	0.14 (− 25.57)	0.92
CH2	0.04 (4.98)	0.01 (0.99)	0.91	0.04 (5.21)	0.16 (− 20.86)	0.88
CH3	0.04 (4.30)	0.00 (0.52)	0.91	–	–	–
CH4	0.04 (3.71)	0.00 (0.13)	0.93	–	–	–
Mean	0.04 (5.47)	0.01 (0.95)	0.89	0.03 (5.27)	− 0.15 (− 23.22)	0.90
	BLS vs. DAP			BLS vs. GLS
CH1	0.06 (10.80)	− 0.02 (− 3.95)	0.75	0.04 (7.47)	0.16 (− 27.14)	0.82
CH2	0.07 (8.98)	− 0.01 (− 1.00)	0.77	0.04 (5.31)	0.17 (− 21.64)	0.88
CH3	0.09 (9.80)	− 0.01 (− 1.62)	0.69	–	–	-
CH4	0.11 (9.46)	− 0.03 (− 2.45)	0.74	–	–	-
Mean	0.08 (9.76)	− 0.02 (− 2.26)	0.74	0.04 (6.39)	− 0.16 (− 24.39)	0.85
	DAP vs. TLS			DAP vs. GLS
CH1	0.04 (7.58)	0.01 (1.93)	0.83	0.06 (13.67)	0.13 (31.82)	0.79
CH2	0.06 (7.83)	0.00 (0.03)	0.75	0.07 (12.38)	0.16 (26.33)	0.73
CH3	0.07 (8.36)	0.01 (0.01)	0.65	–	–	–
CH4	0.07 (6.66)	0.03 (0.03)	0.75	–	–	–
Mean	0.06 (7.61)	0.01 (1.37)	0.74	0.05 (7.95)	− 0.15 (− 22.49)	0.76

The top side of the table showed the evaluation results of 3D sensing datasets with FM; the bottom side of the table showed the results of 3D sensing datasets cross-comparisons. RMSE and RMSE%, Bias and Bias%, and correlation coefficient (r) were given for distinct canopy height (CH) groups. The underlined values were the best result for each CH group among different comparisons
- represents the comparison was not available due to the limited ranging ability of the GLS system

Back to article page

ISSN: 1746-4811

Contact us

Submission enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com