Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review reveals advances and gaps in biomass estimation methods using ground-based 3D point clouds.
Purpose of Review Ground-based 3D point cloud technologies, including static terrestrial laser scanning (TLS), mobile laser scanning (MLS), and close-range photogrammetry, are increasingly used for estimation of aboveground vegetation biomass as they provide detailed structural representations across vegetation types; however, a comprehensive synthesis of how point-cloud data are translated into biomass estimates remains lacking. This review evaluates current approaches, performance patterns, and methodological gaps in biomass estimation using 3D ground-based point clouds. Recent Findings We systematically reviewed and analyzed 160 research articles (comprising 171 device-specific studies) published until the end of 2025 (first appearing in 2010). Research was dominated by tree-based applications (74%), with limited attention to shrubs, grasslands or crops. TLS was the prevailing acquisition technology (78%), although MLS adoption is growing. Biomass estimation primarily relied on allometric equations, volume-based reconstructions (e.g., quantitative structure models, voxelizations, convex hull), and parametric regression models. Reported model performance was generally high in tree- and shrub-based studies (median R 2 > 0.8), but more variable in non-woody vegetation types. Despite rapid advances in 3D sensing, point-cloud-native deep-learning approaches remain rarely implemented in biomass estimation workflows. Summary Ground-based 3D sensing is maturing technically, yet methodological heterogeneity persists. Many workflows still depend on destructive calibration data, semi-manual preprocessing, and non-standardized modelling strategies, limiting reproducibility and cross-study comparability. Multi-sensor integration is emerging but lacks consistent upscaling frameworks. Future research should expand coverage of underrepresented vegetation types, promote standardized and automated processing pipelines, and systematically evaluate point-cloud-native deep learning architectures, both for extracting structural proxies and for assessing their capacity to estimate biomass directly.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bolaños et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: