Comparison of Individual Tree Height Estimated from LiDAR and Digital Aerial Photogrammetry in Young Forests

Biomass stored in young forests has enormous potential for the reduction of fossil fuel consumption. However, to ensure long-term sustainability, the measurement accuracy of tree height is crucial for forest biomass and carbon stock monitoring, particularly in young forests. Precise height measurement using traditional field measurements is challenging and time consuming. Remote sensing (RS) methods can, however, replace traditional field-based forest inventory. In our study, we compare individual tree height estimation from Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and Digital Aerial Photogrammetry (DAP) with field measurements. It should be noted, however, that there was a one-year temporal difference between the field measurement and LiDAR/DAP scanning. A total of 130 trees (32 Scots Pine, 29 Norway Spruce, 67 Silver Birch, and 2 Eurasian Aspen) were selected for height measurement in a young private forest in south-east Finland. Statistical correlation based on paired t-tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA, one way) was used to compare the tree height measured with the different methods. Comparative results between the remote sensing methods and field measurements showed that LiDAR measurements had a stronger correlation with the field measurements and higher accuracy for pine (R 2 = 0.86, bias = 0.70, RMSE = 1.44) and birch (R 2 = 0.81, bias = 0.86, RMSE = 1.56) than DAP, which had correlation values of (R 2 = 0.71, bias = 0.82, RMSE = 2.13) for pine and (R 2 = 0.69, bias = 1.19, RMSE = 2.08) for birch. The correlation of the two remote sensing methods with the field measurements was very similar for spruce: LiDAR (R 2 = 0.83, bias = 0.30, RMSE = 1.17) and DAP (R 2 = 0.83, bias = 0.44, RMSE = 1.26). Moreover, the correlation was highly significant, with minimum error and mean difference (R 2 = 0.79–0.98, MD = 0.12–0.33, RMSD = 0.45–1.67) between LiDAR and DAP for all species. However, the paired t-test suggested that there is a significant difference ( p < 0.05) in height observation between the field measurements and remote sensing for pine and birch. The test showed that LiDAR and DAP output are not significantly different for pine and spruce. Presumably, the time difference in field campaign between the methods was the reason for these significant results. Additionally, the ANOVA test indicated that the overall means of estimated height from LiDAR and DAP were not significantly different from field measurements in all species. We concluded that utilization of LiDAR and DAP for estimating individual tree height in young forests is possible with acceptable error and comparable accuracy to field measurement. Hence, forest inventory in young forests can be carried out using LiDAR or DAP for height estimation at the individual tree level as an alternative to traditional field measurement approaches.