Vertical stratification of forest canopy for segmentation of under-story
trees within small-footprint airborne LiDAR point clouds

Hamid Hamraza*, Marco A. Contrerasb, Jun Zhanga
a: Department of Computer Science, b: Department of Forestry
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA
hhamraz@cs.uky.edu, marco.contreras@uky.edu, jzhang@cs.uky.edu
* Corresponding Author:

hhamraz@cs.uky.edu +1 (859) 489 1261

Abstract
Airborne LiDAR point cloud representing a forest contains 3D data, from which vertical stand structure
even of under-story layers can be derived. This paper presents a tree segmentation approach for multistory stands that stratifies the point cloud to canopy layers and segments individual tree crowns within
each layer using a digital surface model based tree segmentation method. The novelty of the approach is
the stratification procedure that separates the point cloud to an over-story and multiple under-story tree
canopy layers by analyzing vertical distributions of LiDAR points within overlapping locales. Unlike
previous work that stripped stiff layers within a constrained area, the procedure stratifies the point cloud
to flexible tree canopy layers over an unconstrained area with minimal over/under-segmentations of tree
crowns across the layers. The procedure does not make a priori assumptions about the shape and size of
the tree crowns and can, independent of the tree segmentation method, be utilized to vertically stratify tree
crowns of forest canopies with a variety of stand structures. We applied the proposed approach to the
University of Kentucky Robinson Forest – a natural deciduous forest with complex terrain and vegetation
structure. The segmentation results showed that using the stratification procedure strongly improved
detecting under-story trees (from 46% to 68%) at the cost of introducing a fair number of over-segmented
under-story trees (increased from 1% to 16%), while barely affecting the segmentation quality of overstory trees. Results of vertical stratification of canopy showed that the point density of under-story
canopy layers were suboptimal for performing reasonable tree segmentation, suggesting that acquiring
denser LiDAR point clouds (becoming affordable due to advancements of the sensor technology and
platforms) would allow more improvements in segmenting under-story trees.

Keywords: remote sensing, discrete return LiDAR, multi-story stand, canopy layering,
individual tree segmentation.

1

Introduction

In the past two decades, airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) technology has
extensively been used for forestry purposes due to its ability to capture data at unprecedented
spatial and temporal resolutions in the shape of 3D point clouds (Ackermann 1999; Hyyppä et al.
2012; Maltamo et al. 2014; Swatantran et al. 2016; Wehr and Lohr 1999). From this data, more
detailed tree level information can be retrieved to improve the accuracy of forest assessment,
monitoring, and management activities (Duncanson et al. 2012; Vastaranta et al. 2011;
Weinacker et al. 2004; Wulder et al. 2012). Due to the ability to penetrate vegetation canopy,
LiDAR 3D point clouds also contain vertical information from which vegetation structural
information even from under-story canopy layers can be retrieved (Hall et al. 2011; Lefsky et al.
2002; Maguya et al. 2014; Reutebuch et al. 2005), which is of great value for various forestry
applications and ecological studies (Espírito-Santo et al. 2014; Ishii et al. 2004; Singh et al.
2015; Wing et al. 2012). . Although understory trees provide limited financial value and a
minor proportion of total above ground biomass, they influence canopy succession and stand
development, form a heterogeneous and dynamic habitat for numerous wildlife species, and are
an essential component of forest ecosystems (Antos 2009; Heurich 2008; Jules et al. 2008;
Moore et al. 2007). However, to obtain individual trees attributes (e.g., location, crown width,
height, DBH, volume, biomass) from different canopy layers, accurate and automated tree
segmentation approaches that are able to separate tree crowns both vertically and horizontally are
required (Duncanson et al. 2014; Ferraz et al. 2012; Shao and Reynolds 2006; Wang et al. 2008).
Numerous methods for individual tree segmentation within LiDAR data have been developed.
Earlier methods use pre-processed data in the form of digital surface models (DSMs) or canopy
height models (CHMs) to segment individual trees (Chen et al. 2006; Jing et al. 2012; Koch et al.
2006; Kwak et al. 2007; Popescu and Wynne 2004; Véga and Durrieu 2011). These methods
have an inherent drawback of missing under-story trees by considering only the surface data
(Hamraz et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2008). More recent methods process the raw point clouds in
order to utilize all horizontal and vertical information and, from the computational viewpoint,
can be classified to volumetric or profiler methods. Volumetric methods directly search the 3D
volume for the individual trees (Amiri et al. 2016; Ferraz et al. 2012; Lahivaara et al. 2014; Li et
al. 2012; Lindberg et al. 2014; Lu et al. 2014; Rahman and Gorte 2009; Véga et al. 2014), hence
are generally computationally intensive and may be prone to suboptimal solutions due to the
1

large magnitude of the search space. On the other hand, profiler methods tame the
computational load through a more modular process. They typically have a module for vertical
segmentation, i.e., to strip the 3D volume to multiple 2D horizontal profiles, a module for
horizontal segmentation, i.e., to search the trees within the profiles, and a module to ultimately
aggregating the results across the profiles (Ayrey et al. 2017). However, they generally lose
information about the vertical crown geometry when processing a 2D profile. To minimize
information loss due to profiling, other profiler methods have analyzed vertical distribution of
LiDAR points to identify 2.5D profiles embodying more information about vertical crown
geometry. Wang et al. (2008) searched trees within each profile and used a top-down routine to
unify any detected crown that may be present in different profiles. They analyzed vertical
distribution of all LiDAR points globally within a given area to determine the height levels for
stripping profiles. However, depending on the vegetation height variability, a globally derived
height level may lead to under/over-segmenting tree crowns across the profiles. Other
approaches addressed this issue by identifying constrained regions including one or more trees
using a preliminary segmentation routine and independently 2.5D profiling each region
(Duncanson et al. 2014; Paris et al. 2016; Popescu and Zhao 2008), yet the final result is
dependent on the preliminary segmentation.
Although a number of methods for segmenting individual trees in multi-story stands have been
proposed, they are still unable to satisfactorily detect most of the under-story trees. Typically,
detection rate of dominant and co-dominant (over-story) trees is around or above 90% and
detection rate of intermediate and overtopped (under-story) trees is below 50%. This inefficacy
can be attributed to the reduced amount of LiDAR points penetrating below the main cohort
formed by over-story trees (Kükenbrink et al. 2016; Takahashi et al. 2006), although
incompetency of the current approaches to effectively use all vertical and horizontal information
also plays a role. In this paper, we propose a profiler approach for segmenting crowns of all size
trees in multi-story stands. The approach derives height levels locally hence stratifies the point
cloud to 2.5D profiles (hereafter referred to as canopy layers), each of which is sensitive to stand
height variability and includes a layer of non-overtopping tree crowns within an unconstrained
area. The approach then utilizes a DSM-based method as a building block to segment individual
tree crowns within each canopy layer.

2

2

Materials and Methods

2.1 Study site and LiDAR campaign
The study site is the University of Kentucky’s Robinson Forest (RF, Lat. 37.4611, Long. 83.1555) located in the rugged eastern section of the Cumberland Plateau region of southeastern
Kentucky in Breathitt, Perry, and Knott counties (Figure 1). The terrain across RF is
characterized by a branching drainage pattern, creating narrow ridges with sandstone and
siltstone rock formations, curving valleys and benched slopes. The slopes are dissected with
many intermittent streams (Carpenter and Rumsey 1976) and are moderately steep ranging from
10 to over 100% facings predominately northwest and south east, and elevations ranging from
252 to 503 meters above sea level. Vegetation is composed of a diverse contiguous mixed
mesophytic forest made up of approximately 80 tree species with northern red oak (Quercus
rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), American beech
(Fagus grandifolia), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum) as
over-story species. Under-story species include eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), flowering
dogwood (Cornus florida), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), pawpaw (Asimina triloba), umbrella
magnolia (Magnolia tripetala), and bigleaf magnolia (Magnolia macrophylla) (Carpenter and
Rumsey 1976; Overstreet 1984). Average canopy cover across RF is about 93% with small
opening scattered throughout. Most areas exceed 97% canopy cover and recently harvested
areas have an average cover as low as 63%. After being extensively logged in the 1920’s, RF is
considered second growth forest ranging from 80-100 years old, and is now protected from
commercial logging and mining activities (Department of Forestry 2007). RF currently covers
an aggregated area of ~7,440 ha, and includes about 2.5 million (±13.5%) trees of which over
60% are under-story (Hamraz et al. 2016, 2017b).

3

Figure 1. Terrain relief map of the University of Kentucky Robinson Forest and its general location
within Kentucky, USA.

The LiDAR acquisition campaign over RF was performed in summer 2013 during leaf-on season
(May 28-30) using a Leica ALS60 sensor, which was set at 40⁰ field of view and 200 KHz pulse
repetition rate. The sensor was flown at the average altitude of 200 m above ground at the speed
of 105 knots with 50% swath overlap. Up to 4 returns were captured per pulse. Using the 95%
middle portion of each swath, the resulting LiDAR dataset given the swath overlapping has an
average density of 50 pt/m2. The provider processed the raw LiDAR dataset using the TerraScan
software (Terrasolid Ltd. 2012) to classify LiDAR points into ground and non-ground points.
The ground points were then used to create a 1-meter resolution DEM using the natural neighbor
as the fill void method and the average as the interpolation method.

2.2 Tree segmentation approach
Using the DEM, normalized heights of the LiDAR points are calculated then ground points are
removed from further processing. The approach then stratifies the top canopy layer by analyzing
the vertical distributions of the LiDAR points within overlapping locales and removes the layer
from the point cloud. The approach then segments Individual tree crowns within the layer
utilizing the DSM-based method introduced by Hamraz et al. (2016). Stratifying the top canopy
layer of the remainder of the point cloud, removing it, and segmenting tree crowns within the
layer iterates until the point cloud is emptied. Lastly, all tree crowns that have an average width

4

of less than 1.5 m or are entirely located below 4 m from the ground (likely ground level
vegetation) are removed as noise. Figure 2 visualizes the tree segmentation approach.

Figure 2. Illustration of the tree segmentation process in a multi-story stand by stratifying one canopy
layer at a time, removing it from the point cloud, and segmenting crowns within it. A number of understory trees seem to be missed within the third canopy layer, which is likely due to the much lower point
density compared to the first and second layers.

To stratify the top canopy layer, the point cloud is binned into a horizontal grid with a cell width
equal to the average footprint (AFP). AFP equals to the reciprocal of square root of point
density, which itself is defined as the number of points divided by the horizontal area covered by
the point cloud (as layers are removed from the point cloud, point density decreases hence AFP
increases). The height threshold for removing the top layer is determined independently per each
5

individual grid cell by inspecting the height histogram of all points in a circular locale around the
cell, which should include sufficient number of points for building an empirical multi-modal
distribution but not extending very far to preserve locality. We fixed the radius of the locale to
6×AFP (essentially containing about π×62 > 100 points), which is lower bounded at 1.5 m to
prohibit too small locales capturing insufficient spatial structure.
To process a locale, we create a height histogram (bins fixed at 25 cm) of the points in the locale
and smooth the histogram to remove variabilities pertaining to vertical structure of a single
crown. We used a Gaussian filter with a standard deviation fixed at 5 m for smoothing. Every
salient curve in the smoothed histogram, corresponding to a sequence of histogram bins
throughout which the second derivative is negative, represents a canopy layer (Popescu and Zhao
2008; Wang et al. 2008), hence we chose the mid-point of the gap between the top and the
second top layers as the height threshold for removing the top canopy layer within the cell
location (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Height histogram of LiDAR points within a locale including over 100 points used for
determining the height threshold for removing the top canopy layer in a cell location.
6

Since the height thresholds for removing the top canopy layer are determined using overlapping
locales without a priori assumptions about tree crown shape or size, the canopy layer smoothly
adjusts to incorporate vertical variabilities of crowns within an unconstrained area to minimize
under/over-segmenting tree crowns (Figure 2), which is the major novelty of the proposed
segmentation approach. Moreover, the canopy stratification procedure can be applied
independent of the tree segmentation method in order to study the tree canopy layers of forested
landscapes (Leiterer et al. 2015; Whitehurst et al. 2013).

2.3 Approach evaluation
2.3.1

Field data

Throughout the entire RF, 270 regularly distributed (grid-wise every 384 m) circular plots of
0.04 ha in size, centers of which were georeferenced with up to 5 m error, were field surveyed
during the summer of 2013. Within each plot, DBH (cm), tree height (m), species, crown class
(dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, overtopped), tree status (live, dead), and stem class
(single, multiple) were recorded for all trees with DBH > than 12.5 cm. In addition, horizontal
distance and azimuth from plot center to the face of each tree at breast height were collected to
create a stem map. Site variables including slope, aspect, and slope position were also recorded
for each plot. Table 1 shows a summary of the plot level data.

7

Table 1. Summary of plot level data collected from the 270 plots in Robinson Forest.

Plot-Level Metric
Slope
Aspect
Tree count
Dominant
Co-dominant
Intermediate
Overtopped
Dead
Species count
Shannon
diversity index
Average
tree Height
Standard deviation
of tree heights

2.3.2

Min
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.0

Max
93
360
41
3
10
34
19
7
12
2.25

Avg.
50
179
14.7
0.5
3.5
5.5
4.3
0.9
6.0
1.50

(m)

13.9

28.8

19.5

(m)

1.2

12.4

5.5

(%)
⁰

Total

Percent of total

3,971
130
954
1,481
1,152
254
43

3.3
24.0
37.3
29.0
6.4

Evaluation method

LiDAR point clouds over each of the 270 field-surveyed plots included a 4.7-m buffer for
capturing complete crowns of border trees using the proposed tree segmentation approach. The
evaluation method assigns a score to each pair of LiDAR-derived tree location, assumed to be
the apex of the segmented crown, and stem location measured in the field according to the tree
height difference (should be less than 30%) and the leaning angle (should be less than 15° from
nadir) between the crown apex and the stem location. It then selects the set of pairs with the
maximum total score where each crown or stem location appears not more than once using the
Hungarian assignment algorithm and regards the set as the matched trees (Hamraz et al. 2016;
Kuhn 1955). The number of matched trees (MT) is an indication of the tree segmentation
quality. The number of unmatched stem map locations (omission errors – OE) and unmatched
LiDAR-derived crown apexes that are not in the buffer area (commission errors – CE) indicate
under- and over-segmentation, respectively. The accuracy of the approach is calculated in terms
of recall (Re – measure of tree detection rate), precision (Pr – measure of correctness of detected
trees), and F-score (F – combined measure) using the following equations (Manning et al. 2008):

8

𝑀𝑇
𝑀𝑇 + 𝑂𝐸
𝑀𝑇
𝑃𝑟 =
𝑀𝑇 + 𝐶𝐸
𝑅𝑒 × 𝑃𝑟
𝐹 =2×
𝑅𝑒 + 𝑃𝑟
𝑅𝑒 =

1
2
3

We evaluated the accuracy of the approach with and without canopy stratification (equivalent to
the bare DSM-based method used in the approach) to assess the utility of the canopy
stratification procedure for tree segmentation. We conducted two-tailed paired T-tests to
compare the DSM-based and the stratification-enabled approach over nine accuracy metrics, i.e.,
precision, recall, and F-score for over-story, under-story, and all trees. We also present and
discuss the summary metrics of the canopy layers stratified using the proposed procedure.

3

Results and Discussion

3.1 Tree segmentation accuracy
On average for the 270 sample plots, results from the DSM-based tree segmentation show higher
precisions by 5–15% while the stratification-enabled approach shows higher recalls by 5–22%
and higher F-scores by up to 12% (Figure 4). When comparing the stratification-enabled against
the DSM-based approach using the T-tests (Table 2), all metrics except F-score for over-story
trees showed significant (P < .0001) changes. Recall and precision for under-story trees showed
the most remarkable changes: an increase of 22.1% (MSE = 10.035) and a decrease of 15.0%
(MSE = 3.969), respectively. Overall, the stratification-enabled tree segmentation approach
shows improvements in F-scores for under-story (by 11.52%, MSE = 1.698) as well as all trees
(by 6.98%, MSE = 0.655), while barely affecting F-score for over-story trees compared with the
DSM-based approach (Figure 4).

9

Figure 4. Average segmentation accuracies over 270 sample plots grouped by crown class.

10

Table 2. Summary of two-tailed paired T-tests assessing the improvement of canopy stratification for tree
segmentation.

Tree Class

Accuracy
Metric

Samples
Used

MSE

T-Score

P-Value

Average
Improvement

Over-story

Re

269

0.438

45.67

<.0001

+4.68%

Pr

269

0.726

32.95

<.0001

-4.58%

F

268

0.005

0.40

0.53

-0.64%

Re

267

10.035

454.17

<.0001

+22.10%

Pr

265

3.969

233.19

<.0001

-15.05%

F

261

1.698

90.73

<.0001

+11.52%

Re

270

5.440

473.70

<.0001

+16.56%

Pr

270

1.744

175.00

<.0001

-8.98%

F

269

0.655

76.39

<.0001

+6.98%

Under-story

All

Canopy stratification improved overall tree segmentation accuracy as benchmarked against a
recently developed DSM-based segmentation method (Figure 4, Hamraz et al., 2016). However,
this overall improvement is majorly composed of a strong increase in detection rate and a
moderate decrease in correctness of the detected under-story trees. Detecting more trees likely
increased the chance of over-segmentation of the detected trees, and this change was strongly
pronounced for under-story trees compared with over-story ones. This observation indicates an
increased sensitivity of the stratification-enabled approach to segment under-story trees while
barely affecting the segmentation of over-story trees compared with the DSM-based method,
which is also an indication of sound operation of the stratification procedure.
A few similar studies processed raw LiDAR point clouds and reported accuracy metrics for
segmentation of under-story trees. For example, In a Norway spruce dominated forest, Solberg
et al. (2006) detected 66% of the trees (dominant 93%, co-dominant 63%, intermediate 38%,
and overtopped 19%) with a commission error of 26%. Paris et al. (2016) detected more than
90% of over-story and about 77% of under-story trees with a commission rate of 7% in conifer
sites located in the Southern Italian Alps. However, due to tree crown architecture, segmenting
trees in conifer stands is relatively simpler and studies have showed better performance
11

compared to deciduous or mixed stands (Hu et al. 2014; Vauhkonen et al. 2011). In a deciduous
stand at Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Maryland, Duncanson et al. (2014)
detected 70% of dominant (0% commissions), 58% of co-dominant (45% commissions), 35% of
intermediate (166% commissions), and 21% of overtopped (29% commissions) trees. Ferraz et
al. (2012) detected 99.3% of dominant, 92.6% of co-dominant, 65.7% of intermediate, and
14.5% of overtopped Eucalyptus trees in a Portuguese forest with an overall commission rate of
9.2%. In another deciduous stand in Eastern France, Véga et al. (2014) detected 100% and 44%
of over-story and under-story trees with 27% and 3% commissions, respectively. Detection rate
of our stratification-enabled tree segmentation approach was ~95% for over-story trees and
~68% for under-story trees, with a commission rate of ~17%. These results show improvements,
especially in segmenting under-story trees, bearing the caveat that aforementioned studies were
conducted in different sites using different LiDAR acquisition parameters with slightly different
field surveying protocols and evaluation methods.

3.2 Canopy stratification procedure
For most of the 270 plots, the stratification procedure identified three (68.2%) or four (24.1%)
canopy layers with an expected number of canopy layers of 3.16 per plot. Any layer located
below 4 m for its entirety was excluded because it likely represents ground level vegetation,
though any of the remaining layers may extend below 4 m and even touch the ground. Starting
height and thickness of a canopy layer are defined as the medians over all grid cells used to
stratify the layer (Figure 3). The average starting height of a canopy layer ranged between 0.3 to
18.2 m and the average thickness of a layer ranged between 6.1 and 8.8 m. Also, the average
point density of a layer ranged between 0.44 and 42.08 pt/m2. The average starting height,
thickness, and point density of the entire canopy (all layers aggregated) was 1.4 m, 24.8 m, and
47.45 pt/m2, respectively. The average point density of the entire canopy agrees with the average
point density of the initial LiDAR dataset of 50 pt/m2 given that ground and ground level
vegetation returns were removed.

12

Table 3. Summary statistics of the canopy layers stratified within the 270 sample plots.
Canopy

Plots1

Layer

Starting Height (m)

Thickness (m)

Point Density (pt/m2)

Avg.

S.D.

Avg.

S.D.

Avg.

S.D.

1

0.00%

18.16

4.53

8.18

0.38

42.08

17.42

2

7.78%

4.23

2.58

8.76

0.99

5.02

3.23

3

68.15%

0.47

1.03

6.44

1.35

0.84

0.79

4

24.07%

0.34

1.39

6.14

1.82

0.44

0.80

Aggregate

100.00%

1.38

1.41

24.85

4.26

47.45

20.13

1

Plots having as many number of canopy layers.

Thickness and point density generally decreases with lower canopy layers (Table 3). Specifically,
the two lower canopy layers, where the majority of under-story trees are found, have an average
density lower than 1 pt/m2 (Table 3). Such low density is far less than the optimal point density
(~4 pt/m2) for segmenting individual trees (Evans et al. 2009; Jakubowski et al. 2013; Wallace et
al. 2014), which is the main reason for inferior tree segmentation accuracy of under-story trees
compared with over-story trees. Moreover, lower canopy layers are more tightly placed
compared with higher canopy layers as also shown by Whitehurst et al. (2013), which might
have made stratification of the layers more challenging and increased the chances of under/oversegmentation of small under-story trees.
As reported by Kükenbrink et al. (2016), at least 25% of canopy volume remain uncovered even
in small-footprint airborne LiDAR acquisition campaigns, which concurs with suboptimal point
density of lower canopy layers for tree segmentation in our study. If, however, our initial point
cloud was a few times denser, the two lower canopy layers might have neared the optimal
density, likely boosting segmentation accuracy of under-story trees. In a concurrent study, we
modeled how point density of lower canopy layers decreases and estimated that a point cloud
density of about 170 pt/m2 is required to segment under-story trees within as deep as the third
canopy layer with accuracies similar to over-story trees (Hamraz et al. 2017a). Such dense
LiDAR campaigns are slowly becoming affordable given the advancements of the sensor
technology and platforms (Swatantran et al. 2016).

13

Lastly, an interesting counter intuitive observation was that thickness of a canopy layer seemed
to be unrelated to its starting height except only for very low starting heights (Figure 5), which is
likely associated with layers formed by very small trees. Dependence of a canopy layer
thickness on the number of layers preceding it and its independence to height is likely due to the
fact that tree crowns within a canopy layer adapt their shape to maximize light exposure
(Duursma and Mäkelä 2007; OSADA and TAKEDA 2003), and light exposure is related to the
amount of light already intercepted by preceding canopy layers rather than the height of the
layer.

Figure 5. Thickness of canopy layer according to starting height of the layer.

4

Conclusions

Small-footprint LiDAR data covering forested areas contain a wealth of information of both
horizontal and vertical vegetation structure that can be utilized to enhance various forestry
applications and ecological studies. In this paper, we presented a modular approach that
stratified the raw point cloud extended over an unconstrained area to its tree canopy layers, and

14

utilized a DSM-based tree crown segmentation method as a building block for each layer to
segment all sized trees in a multi-story deciduous stand. Statistical analyses showed overall
improvements in segmentation accuracy of under-story trees without any noticeable change in
the accuracy of over-story trees, which was the main objective of using canopy stratification as a
module for tree segmentation. The proposed canopy stratification procedure can also be applied
independent of the crown segmentation method in order to vertically stratify canopy to flexible
layers of tree crowns over unconstrained areas.
The modular process of our segmentation approach allowed us to study the canopy layers
individually. We observed that the point densities of the lower canopy layers were suboptimal
for segmentation of individual under-story trees. It is expected that acquiring denser LiDAR
point clouds brings the point density of lower canopy layers closer to optimal value, likely
resulting in more improvements in the segmentation of under-story trees. The result presented
indicates this work is a promising step forward toward correctly retrieving and modeling all
individual (over-story and under-story) trees of a natural forest using small-footprint LiDAR
data.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by: 1) the Department of Forestry at the University of Kentucky and
the McIntire-Stennis project KY009026 Accession 1001477, ii) the Kentucky Science and
Engineering Foundation under the grant KSEF-3405-RDE-018, and iii) the University of
Kentucky Center for Computational Sciences. The authors would also like to thank Chase Clark
for preparing the 3D visualization in Figure 2.

Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the
corresponding author on reasonable request.

References
Ackermann, F. (1999). Airborne laser scanning—present status and future expectations. ISPRS Journal of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 54, 64-67
15

Amiri, N., Yao, W., Heurich, M., Krzystek, P., & Skidmore, A.K. (2016). Estimation of regeneration
coverage in a temperate forest by 3D segmentation using airborne laser scanning data. International
Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 52, 252-262
Antos, J. (2009). Understory plants in temperate forests. Forests and forest plants. Eolss Publishers Co
Ltd, Oxford, 262-279
Ayrey, E., Fraver, S., Kershaw Jr, J.A., Kenefic, L.S., Hayes, D., Weiskittel, A.R., & Roth, B.E. (2017).
Layer Stacking: A Novel Algorithm for Individual Forest Tree Segmentation from LiDAR Point Clouds.
Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 1-13
Carpenter, S.B., & Rumsey, R.L. (1976). Trees and shrubs of Robinson Forest Breathitt County,
Kentucky. Castanea, 277-282
Chen, Q., Baldocchi, D., Gong, P., & Kelly, M. (2006). Isolating individual trees in a savanna woodland
using small-footprint LiDAR data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 72, 923-932
Department of Forestry (2007). Robinson Forest: a facility for research, teaching, and extension
education. In: University of Kentucky
Duncanson, L., Cook, B., Hurtt, G., & Dubayah, R. (2014). An efficient, multi-layered crown delineation
algorithm for mapping individual tree structure across multiple ecosystems. Remote Sensing of
Environment, 154, 378-386
Duncanson, L., Dubayah, R., Hurtt, G., Pinto, N., Cook, B., & Swatantran, A. (2012). How important is
individual tree information for biomass modeling and mapping? In, AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts (p.
0353)
Duursma, R., & Mäkelä, A. (2007). Summary models for light interception and light-use efficiency of
non-homogeneous canopies. Tree physiology, 27, 859-870
Espírito-Santo, F.D., Gloor, M., Keller, M., Malhi, Y., Saatchi, S., Nelson, B., Junior, R.C.O., Pereira, C.,
Lloyd, J., & Frolking, S. (2014). Size and frequency of natural forest disturbances and the Amazon forest
carbon balance. Nature communications, 5
Evans, J.S., Hudak, A.T., Faux, R., & Smith, A. (2009). Discrete return lidar in natural resources:
Recommendations for project planning, data processing, and deliverables. Remote Sensing, 1, 776-794

16

Ferraz, A., Bretar, F., Jacquemoud, S., Gonçalves, G., Pereira, L., Tomé, M., & Soares, P. (2012). 3-D
mapping of a multi-layered Mediterranean forest using ALS data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 121,
210-223
Hall, F.G., Bergen, K., Blair, J.B., Dubayah, R., Houghton, R., Hurtt, G., Kellndorfer, J., Lefsky, M.,
Ranson, J., & Saatchi, S. (2011). Characterizing 3D vegetation structure from space: Mission
requirements. Remote Sensing of Environment, 115, 2753-2775
Hamraz, H., Contreras, M.A., & Zhang, J. (2016). A robust approach for tree segmentation in deciduous
forests using small-footprint airborne LiDAR data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation
and Geoinformation, 52, 532-541
Hamraz, H., Contreras, M.A., & Zhang, J. (2017a). Forest understory trees can be segmented accurately
using sufficiently dense airborne laser scanning point clouds. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.06188
Hamraz, H., Contreras, M.A., & Zhang, J. (2017b). A scalable approach for tree segmentation within
small-footprint airborne LiDAR data. Computers & Geosciences, 102, 139-147
Heurich, M. (2008). Automatic recognition and measurement of single trees based on data from airborne
laser scanning over the richly structured natural forests of the Bavarian Forest National Park. Forest
Ecology and Management, 255, 2416-2433
Hu, B., Li, J., Jing, L., & Judah, A. (2014). Improving the efficiency and accuracy of individual tree
crown delineation from high-density LiDAR data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation
and Geoinformation, 26, 145-155
Hyyppä, J., Holopainen, M., & Olsson, H. (2012). Laser scanning in forests. Remote Sensing, 4, 29192922
Ishii, H.T., Tanabe, S.-i., & Hiura, T. (2004). Exploring the relationships among canopy structure, stand
productivity, and biodiversity of temperate forest ecosystems. Forest Science, 50, 342-355
Jakubowski, M.K., Guo, Q., & Kelly, M. (2013). Tradeoffs between lidar pulse density and forest
measurement accuracy. Remote Sensing of Environment, 130, 245-253
Jing, L., Hu, B., Li, J., & Noland, T. (2012). Automated delineation of individual tree crowns from
LiDAR data by multi-scale analysis and segmentation. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing, 78, 1275-1284
17

Jules, M.J., Sawyer, J.O., & Jules, E.S. (2008). Assessing the relationships between stand development
and understory vegetation using a 420-year chronosequence. Forest Ecology and Management, 255,
2384-2393
Koch, B., Heyder, U., & Weinacker, H. (2006). Detection of individual tree crowns in airborne LiDAR
data. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 72, 357-363
Kuhn, H.W. (1955). The Hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval research logistics
quarterly, 2, 83-97
Kükenbrink, D., Schneider, F.D., Leiterer, R., Schaepman, M.E., & Morsdorf, F. (2016). Quantification
of hidden canopy volume of airborne laser scanning data using a voxel traversal algorithm. Remote
Sensing of Environment
Kwak, D.-A., Lee, W.-K., Lee, J.-H., Biging, G.S., & Gong, P. (2007). Detection of individual trees and
estimation of tree height using LiDAR data. Journal of Forest Research, 12, 425-434
Lahivaara, T., Seppanen, A., Kaipio, J.P., Vauhkonen, J., Korhonen, L., Tokola, T., & Maltamo, M.
(2014). Bayesian approach to tree detection based on airborne laser scanning data. IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 52, 2690-2699
Lefsky, M.A., Cohen, W.B., Parker, G.G., & Harding, D.J. (2002). LiDAR remote sensing for ecosystem
studies BioScience, 52, 19-30
Leiterer, R., Furrer, R., Schaepman, M.E., & Morsdorf, F. (2015). Forest canopy-structure
characterization: A data-driven approach. Forest Ecology and Management, 358, 48-61
Li, W., Guo, Q., Jakubowski, M.K., & Kelly, M. (2012). A new method for segmenting individual trees
from the LiDAR point cloud. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 78, 75-84
Lindberg, E., Eysn, L., Hollaus, M., Holmgren, J., & Pfeifer, N. (2014). Delineation of tree crowns and
tree species classification from full-waveform airborne laser scanning data using 3-D ellipsoidal
clustering. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 7, 31743181
Lu, X., Guo, Q., Li, W., & Flanagan, J. (2014). A bottom-up approach to segment individual deciduous
trees using leaf-off lidar point cloud data. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 94, 112
18

Maguya, A.S., Junttila, V., & Kauranne, T. (2014). Algorithm for extracting digital terrain models under
forest canopy from airborne LiDAR data. Remote Sensing, 6, 6524-6548
Maltamo, M., Næsset, E., & Vauhkonen, J. (2014). Forestry Applications of Airborne Laser Scanning:
Concepts and case studies. . Manag For Ecosys

Manning, C.D., Raghavan, P., & Schütze, H. (2008). Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge
university press Cambridge
Moore, P., Van Miegroet, H., & Nicholas, N. (2007). Relative role of understory and overstory in carbon
and nitrogen cycling in a southern Appalachian spruce-fir forest AES Publication 7863. Utah Agricultural
Experiment Station, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 37, 26892700
OSADA, N., & TAKEDA, H. (2003). Branch architecture, light interception and crown development in
saplings of a plagiotropically branching tropical tree, Polyalthia jenkinsii (Annonaceae). Annals of
botany, 91, 55-63
Overstreet, J. (1984). Robinson Forest inventory. Department of Forestry, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky
Paris, C., Valduga, D., & Bruzzone, L. (2016). A hierarchical approach to three-dimensional
segmentation of LiDAR data at single-tree level in a multilayered forest. IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 54, 4190-4203
Popescu, S.C., & Wynne, R.H. (2004). Seeing the trees in the forest. Photogrammetric Engineering &
Remote Sensing, 70, 589-604
Popescu, S.C., & Zhao, K. (2008). A voxel-based lidar method for estimating crown base height for
deciduous and pine trees. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112, 767-781
Rahman, M., & Gorte, B. (2009). Tree crown delineation from high resolution airborne lidar based on
densities of high points. In, Proceedings ISPRS Workshop Laserscanning 2009, September 1-2, France,
IAPRS, XXXVIII (3/W8), 2009: ISPRS

19

Reutebuch, S.E., Andersen, H.-E., & McGaughey, R.J. (2005). Light detection and ranging (LIDAR): an
emerging tool for multiple resource inventory. Journal of Forestry, 103, 286-292
Shao, G., & Reynolds, K.M. (2006). Computer Applications in Sustainable Forest Management:
Including Perspectives on Collaboration and Integration. Springer Science & Business Media
Singh, K.K., Davis, A.J., & Meentemeyer, R.K. (2015). Detecting understory plant invasion in urban
forests using LiDAR. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 38, 267279
Solberg, S., Naesset, E., & Bollandsas, O.M. (2006). Single tree segmentation using airborne laser
scanner data in a structurally heterogeneous spruce forest. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote
Sensing, 72, 1369-1378
Swatantran, A., Tang, H., Barrett, T., DeCola, P., & Dubayah, R. (2016). Rapid, High-Resolution Forest
Structure and Terrain Mapping over Large Areas using Single Photon Lidar. Scientific reports, 6
Takahashi, T., Yamamoto, K., Miyachi, Y., Senda, Y., & Tsuzuku, M. (2006). The penetration rate of
laser pulses transmitted from a small-footprint airborne LiDAR: a case study in closed canopy, middleaged pure sugi (Cryptomeria japonica D. Don) and hinoki cypress (Chamaecyparis obtusa Sieb. et Zucc.)
stands in Japan. Journal of Forest Research, 11, 117-123
Terrasolid Ltd. (2012). TerraScan User's Guide. In: Terrasolid Oy
Vastaranta, M., Holopainen, M., Yu, X., Hyyppä, J., Mäkinen, A., Rasinmäki, J., Melkas, T., Kaartinen,
H., & Hyyppä, H. (2011). Effects of individual tree detection error sources on forest management
planning calculations. Remote Sensing, 3, 1614-1626
Vauhkonen, J., Ene, L., Gupta, S., Heinzel, J., Holmgren, J., Pitkänen, J., Solberg, S., Wang, Y.,
Weinacker, H., & Hauglin, K.M. (2011). Comparative testing of single-tree detection algorithms under
different types of forest. Forestry, cpr051
Véga, C., & Durrieu, S. (2011). Multi-level filtering segmentation to measure individual tree parameters
based on Lidar data: Application to a mountainous forest with heterogeneous stands. International
Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 13, 646-656

20

Véga, C., Hamrouni, A., El Mokhtari, S., Morel, J., Bock, J., Renaud, J.-P., Bouvier, M., & Durrieu, S.
(2014). PTrees: A point-based approach to forest tree extraction from lidar data. International Journal of
Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 33, 98-108
Wallace, L., Lucieer, A., & Watson, C.S. (2014). Evaluating tree detection and segmentation routines on
very high resolution UAV LiDAR data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 52,
7619-7628
Wang, Y., Weinacker, H., & Koch, B. (2008). A lidar point cloud based procedure for vertical canopy
structure analysis and 3D single tree modelling in forest. Sensors, 8, 3938-3951
Wehr, A., & Lohr, U. (1999). Airborne laser scanning—an introduction and overview. ISPRS Journal of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 54, 68-82
Weinacker, H., Koch, B., Heyder, U., & Weinacker, R. (2004). Development of filtering, segmentation
and modelling modules for lidar and multispectral data as a fundament of an automatic forest inventory
system. International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 36
(Part 8), W2
Whitehurst, A.S., Swatantran, A., Blair, J.B., Hofton, M.A., & Dubayah, R. (2013). Characterization of
canopy layering in forested ecosystems using full waveform lidar. Remote Sensing, 5, 2014-2036
Wing, B.M., Ritchie, M.W., Boston, K., Cohen, W.B., Gitelman, A., & Olsen, M.J. (2012). Prediction of
understory vegetation cover with airborne lidar in an interior ponderosa pine forest. Remote Sensing of
Environment, 124, 730-741
Wulder, M.A., White, J.C., Nelson, R.F., Næsset, E., Ørka, H.O., Coops, N.C., Hilker, T., Bater, C.W., &
Gobakken, T. (2012). Lidar sampling for large-area forest characterization: A review. Remote Sensing of
Environment, 121, 196-209

21

