Evaluates RGB-only individual-tree detection in loblolly pine, suggesting optimal SfM parameters for accuracy.
Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) photogrammetry offers a cost-effective approach to tree-level detection, however, Structure-from-Motion (SfM) outputs are sensitive to processing choices and site conditions, which can alter canopy representation and reduce individual-tree detection accuracy. Here, we systematically evaluate how SfM reconstruction quality and depth-map filtering influence RGB-only individual-tree detection under controlled acquisition conditions. Objectives were to (i) identify an optimal SfM-derived point-cloud configuration for delineating individual trees, and (ii) implement and test a segmentation workflow (local-maxima treetop detection plus Dalponte2016 in lidR) for detecting and counting trees. We assessed RGB-only SfM for individual-tree detection (ITD) across thirteen 1.21-ha loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda ) plots located in two counties in the state of Alabama in the southeastern United States; eight even-aged plantations and five mixed pine-hardwood stands, while holding image acquisition parameters constant. Using Agisoft Metashape Professional (Agisoft LLC, St. Petersburg, Russia), dense-cloud quality (Lowest, Low, Medium, High, Ultra High) and depth-map filtering (Disabled, Mild, Moderate, Aggressive) were varied in a 5 × 4 full-factorial design; assessment metrics included point-cloud density, canopy-surface completeness, canopy-height-model (CHM) agreement with field heights, and ITD precision/recall/F1. We identified a single high-resolution configuration (Ultra High + Disabled) by screening parameter sets for structural accuracy and suppression of false peaks. Using this configuration, CHMs matched field heights in Washington County, Alabama (R 2 = 0.96; RMSE = 0.44 m; bias = − 0.01 m) and in Cullman County, Alabama (R 2 = 0.44; RMSE = 1.14 m; bias = − 0.09 m); pooled performance was R 2 = 0.98; RMSE = 0.54 m; bias = − 0.01 m. ITD accuracy at the primary 3 m match radius yielded a precision of 0.03; recall = 0.29; F1 = 0.05 in the even-aged plantations (Washington) and a precision of 0.03; recall = 0.12; F1 = 0.05 in mixed pine–hardwood stands (Cullman); pooled F1 = 0.05. The selected parameters and workflow are reproducible and transferable, provide insight into RGB-SfM ITD performance, and indicate when lidar remains preferable for crown delineation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
SINGH et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: