Randomized trial investigates tree height and trunk diameter estimates in urban elm trees, highlighting novel methods and applications.
Urban forest health may be monitored and supported with the implementation and maintenance of an accurate community tree inventory. The longitudinal recording of a tree’s attributes (i.e. diameter and height) may inform potential inputs and activities related to maintenance, health, and the establishment of a tree protection zone. Urban tree inventories feature barriers to implementation including resources (i.e. labour, time, and finances), competing priorities, and gaps in knowledge. The objectives of this case study were to investigate the feasibility of structure-from-motion (SfM) approaches to measure tree height and trunk diameter (1) with oblique RGB imagery, (2) with and without GCP, and (3) during leaf-off and leaf-on conditions. Structure-from-Motion datasets were obtained using Unoccupied Aerial Systems (UAS) – “drones” and related components – to collect oblique aerial imagery, which was processed with photogrammetry software Agisoft Metashape. Tree height measurements using leaf-on imagery (R2 = 0.58, RMSE = 1.34 m) were more accurate when compared to leaf-off imagery with Ground Control Points (GCP) (R2 = 0.47, RMSE = 3.41 m) and leaf-off imagery without GCPs (R2 = 0.43, RMSE = 3.49 m). Tree height measurements during the leaf-off period had no significant difference when comparing imagery with and without GCPs. Trunk diameter measurements using leaf-off imagery were not significantly different with the use of GCPs (R2 = 0.68, RMSE = 6.39 cm) compared to those without (R2 = 0.68, RMSE = 7.85 cm). This case study highlights the applicability and accuracy of Unoccupied Aerial Systems and Structure-from-Motion methods when collecting important urban tree inventory parameters, and presents an accessible, reliable, and replicable workflow for urban forestry practitioners with limited photogrammetry-related experience.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Copeland et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: