Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Sample plots in Villa Paolina (A–F) with tree position and canopy area recorded by Field-Map.
- Figure 2.
Representative pictures of measured plots in the study area.
- Figure 3.
Correlation of tree parameters measured by smartphone and other tools (r-values are significant with P < 0.001). (A): DBH measured by smartphone (DBH ip) vs. tree caliper (DBH); (B): tree height measured by smartphone (Height ip) and electronic ipsometer (Height); (C): crown width measured by smartphone (Crown width ip) vs. crown projection assessed by Field-Map (Crown projection); (D): relationship between Height ip and crown base height measured by smartphone (Crown base height ip); (E): relationship between DBH ip and Crown width ip; (F): relationship between DBH ip and Crown projection.
- Figure 4.
Horizontal and under-canopy photos for the shading factor evaluation (A = Magnolia grandiflora, B = Cedrus libani, C = Tilia cordata, D = Pinus pinea, E = Aesculus hippocastanum).
- Figure 5.
A 3D visualization of tree stems of plot E and calculation of diameter, height, area, and volume.
Tables
- Table 1.
Tree dendrometric data measured in plots with smartphone (DBH, height, crown base height, crown width), diameter caliper (DBH), ipsometer (height), and Field-Map (crown projection).
Plot N° trees Area (m2) Species DBH iPhone (cm) Height iPhone (m) Crown base height iPhone (m) Crown width iPhone (m) DBH caliper (cm) Height ipsometer (m) Crown projection Field-Map (m2) A 44 220 Cupressus sempervirens 20.7 ± 6.1 12.2 ± 2.8 1.8 ± 0.7 1.7 ± 0.8 20 ± 6.1 13.2 ± 1.7 4.4 ± 1.2 B 19 150 Quercus ilex 52.5 ± 13.6 23.9 ± 3.4 5.1 ± 0.5 9 ± 4.7 53.6 ± 12.8 26.2 ± 0.7 80.9 ± 36.9 C 15 170 Pinus pinea 60.4 ± 16.4 27.5 ± 3.8 14.4 ± 3.1 13.9 ± 5.5 62.1 ± 16.6 27.8 ± 1.7 85.5 ± 47.3 D 2 126 Abies alba 43 ± 4.2 20.7 ± 3.8 4.8 ± 0.9 13.5 ± 2.8 43.3 ± 5.3 76.3 ± 28.4 5 Cedrus libani 56.8 ± 10.3 22.7 ± 3.2 6.1 ± 0.5 6.7 ± 0.2 58.4 ± 11.4 53.5 3 Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 36.7 ± 1.5 15.1 ± 0.7 0.8 ± 0.6 3.6 ± 0.1 28.3 ± 14.2 2 Pinus pinea 59.5 ± 3.5 24 ± 1.4 12 ± 1.4 10.5 ± 1.4 60 ± 7.1 23.6 ± 5.1 61.7 E 2 150 Abies alba 8 ± 1.4 5.1 ± 2.2 1.9 ± 0.2 2.9 ± 0.2 8 ± 2.8 8.1 1 Cedrus libani 44 22 6 7 47.5 20 3 Cupressus sempervirens 70.7 ± 6.1 23.3 ± 0.1 3.2 ± 0.3 7.9 ± 0.3 71.8 ± 5.8 25 19 Pinus nigra 36.8 ± 3.8 18.8 ± 1.8 11.5 ± 2 5.1 ± 0.9 37.3 ± 3.9 20.5 ± 0.7 24.1 ± 2.1 F 4 80 Prunus avium 32.8 ± 8.8 7.6 ± 0.8 2.1 ± 0.2 4 ± 1.3 33.5 ± 9.3 8.5 ± 0.7 19.8 ± 4.5 4 Prunus cerasifera 39.3 ± 9.6 7.7 ± 1.7 1.9 ± 0.3 4.5 ± 1.3 40 ± 9.5 14.8 ± 6.8 - Table 2.
Comparison of tree measurement methods in terms of instruments, measurable parameters, operators required, application type, approximate costs, and estimated time per plot (8 to 44 trees).
Method Instruments Measurable parameters Number of operators Application type Estimated time Approximate costs Traditional Diameter caliper, Ipsometer, Metric tape, GPS DBH, tree height, crown height, crown width, stem inclination, tree position 1 (2) Tree inventory 30 min – 60 min 1,600€ – 2,000€
80€ – 150€
20€ – 50€
300€ – 400€Spatial Fied-Map station (Antelope model) Georeferenced tree and crown position 2 Tree and canopy spatialization 20 min – 40 min 9,000€ Smartphone iPhone 12 Pro, Apps DBH, tree height, crown height, crown width, tree position, stem volume, surface and inclination, photos 1 Tree inventory, LAI, 3D model 30 min – 60 min From 1,189€ + app cost Species Measured shading factors Reference shading factors (Nowak 1996) Magnolia grandiflora L. 0.75 0.83 Cedrus libani A. Rich. 0.73 0.91 Tilia cordata Mill. 0.95 0.88 Pinus pinea L. 0.56 0.83 Aesculus hippocastanum L. 0.91 0.88
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.