Miniature UAVs and Photogrammetry—A Novel Approach to Collecting Aerial Inspection Data from Mature Broadleaf Trees

LITERATURE CITED

1. ↵
   1. Anderson K,
   2. Gaston KJ

   . 2013. Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 11(3):138-146. https://doi.org/10.1890/120150

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
2. ↵
   1. Icold C

   1. Buffi G,
   2. Manciola P,
   3. de Lorenzis L,
   4. Gambi A

   . 2018. Influence of construction joints in arch-gravity dams modelling: The case of ridracoli. In: Icold C, editor. Twenty-sixth international congress on large dams. Vienna (Austria): CRC Press. p. 1047-1062. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429465086
3. ↵
   1. Cannon CH,
   2. Scher CL,
   3. Gao A,
   4. Khan T,
   5. Kua CS

   . 2018. Building a tree observatory. Acta Horticulturae. 1222:85-92. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1222.12

   OpenUrl
4. ↵
   1. Côté JF,
   2. Widlowski JL,
   3. Fournier RA,
   4. Verstraete MM

   . 2009. The structural and radiative consistency of three-dimensional tree reconstructions from terrestrial lidar. Remote Sensing of Environment. 113(5):1067-1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2009.01.017

   OpenUrlCrossRef
5. ↵
   1. Cox S,
   2. Melarange P

   . 2017. Aerial inspections: Guide to good practice. Stroud (United Kingdom): Arboricultural Association. AA Guidance Note 11. 43 p. http://www.treesource.co.uk/guidance-note-11-aerial-inspections-a-guide-to-good-practice~4723
6. ↵
   1. Dunster JA,
   2. Smiley ET,
   3. Matheny N,
   4. Lilly S

   . 2017. Tree risk assessment manual. 2nd Ed. Champaign (IL, USA): International Society of Arboriculture. 194 p.
7. ↵
   1. EDF R&D

   . 2022. Los Altos (CA, USA): CloudCompare.org. [Updated 2022 March 12; Accessed 2022 April 30]. https://www.danielgm.net/cc
8. ↵
   1. Ganz S,
   2. Käber Y,
   3. Adler P

   . 2019. Measuring tree height with remote sensing—A comparison of photogrammetric and LiDAR data with different field measurements. Forests. 10(8):694. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10080694

   OpenUrl
9. ↵
   1. Gatziolis D,
   2. Lienard JF,
   3. Vogs A,
   4. Strigul NS

   . 2015. 3D tree dimensionality assessment using photogrammetry and small unmanned aerial vehicles. PLOS ONE. 10(9):e0137765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137765

   OpenUrl
10. ↵
    1. Hobart M,
    2. Pflanz M,
    3. Weltzien C,
    4. Schirrmann M

    . 2020. Growth height determination of tree walls for precise monitoring in apple fruit production using UAV photogrammetry. Remote Sensing. 12(10):1656. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12101656

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. Koh LP,
    2. Wich SA

    . 2012. Dawn of drone ecology: Low-cost autonomous aerial vehicles for conservation. Tropical Conservation Science. 5(2):121-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291200500202

    OpenUrlCrossRef
12. ↵
    1. Krause S,
    2. Sanders TGM,
    3. Mund JP,
    4. Greve K

    . 2019. UAV-based photogrammetric tree height measurement for intensive forest monitoring. Remote Sensing. 11(7):758. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11070758

    OpenUrl
13. ↵
    1. Lipwoni V,
    2. Watt MS,
    3. Hartley RJL,
    4. Leonardo EMC,
    5. Morgenroth J

    . 2022. A comparison of photogrammetric software for deriving structure-from-motion 3D point clouds and estimating tree heights. New Zealand Journal of Forestry. 66(4):18-26. https://hdl.handle.net/10092/103888

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Mokroš M,
    2. Liang X,
    3. Surový P,
    4. Valent P,
    5. Čerňava J,
    6. Chudý F,
    7. Tunák D,
    8. Saloň Š,
    9. Merganič J

    . 2018. Evaluation of close-range photogrammetry image collection methods for estimating tree diameters. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 7(3):93. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7030093

    OpenUrl
15. ↵
    1. Moreira BM,
    2. Goyanes G,
    3. Pina P,
    4. Vassilev O,
    5. Heleno S

    . 2021. Assessment of the influence of survey design and processing choices on the accuracy of tree diameter at breast height (DBH) measurements using UAV-based photogrammetry. Drones. 5(2):43. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones5020043

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Moyano J,
    2. Nieto-Julián JE,
    3. Bienvenido-Huertas D,
    4. Marín-García D

    . 2020. Validation of close-range photogrammetry for architectural and archaeological heritage: Analysis of point density and 3D mesh geometry. Remote Sensing. 12(21): 3571. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12213571

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Nezami S,
    2. Khoramshahi E,
    3. Nevalainen O,
    4. Pölönen I,
    5. Honkavaara E

    . 2020. Tree species classification of drone hyperspectral and RGB imagery with deep learning convolutional neural networks. Remote Sensing. 12(7):1070. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12071070

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Nitoslawski SA,
    2. Wong-Stevens K,
    3. Steenberg JWN,
    4. Witherspoon K,
    5. Nesbitt L,
    6. Konijnendijk van den Bosch CC

    . 2021. The digital forest: Mapping a decade of knowledge on technological applications for forest ecosystems. Earth’s Future. 9(8):e2021EF002123. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002123

    OpenUrl
19. ↵
    1. Pfeifer N,
    2. Falkner J,
    3. Bayr A,
    4. Eysn L,
    5. Ressl C

    . 2021. Test charts for evaluating imaging and point cloud quality of mobile mapping systems for urban street space acquisition. Remote Sensing. 13(2):237. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13020237

    OpenUrl
20. ↵
    1. Williams G

    1. Priestley S

    . 2017. An introduction to innovation in arboriculture. In: Williams G, editor. TREENET proceedings of the 18th national street tree symposium. 18th National Street Tree Symposium; 2017 September 7–8; Adelaide, South Australia. Adelaide (Australia): The University of Adelaide. p. 61-66. [Accessed 2022 April 30]. https://cdn.treenet.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/TREENET-2017-Symposium-Proceedings_FINAL.pdf
21. ↵
    1. Ramalho de Oliveira LF,
    2. Lassiter HA,
    3. Wilkinson B,
    4. Whitley T,
    5. Ifju P,
    6. Logan SR,
    7. Peter GF,
    8. Vogel JG,
    9. Martin TA

    . 2021. Moving to automated tree inventory: Comparison of UAS-derived lidar and photogrammetric data with manual ground estimates. Remote Sensing. 13(1):72. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13010072

    OpenUrl
22. ↵
    1. Scher CL,
    2. Griffoul E,
    3. Cannon CH

    . 2019. Drone-based photogrammetry for the construction of high-resolution models of individual trees. Trees. 33:1385-1397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-019-01866-x

    OpenUrl
23. ↵
    1. Schmitt U,
    2. Lüer B,
    3. Dujesiefken D,
    4. Koch G

    . 2014. The Massaria disease of plane trees: Its wood decay mechanism. IAWA Journal. 35(4):395-406. https://doi.org/10.1163/22941932-00000074

    OpenUrl
24. ↵
    1. Seo J,
    2. Duque L,
    3. Wacker J

    . 2018. Drone-enabled bridge inspection methodology and application. Automation in Construction. 94:112-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.06.006

    OpenUrl
25. ↵
    1. Slater D

    . 2022. Branch junctions: A classification system for arborists. Stroud (United Kingdom): Arboricultural Association. AA Guidance Note 14. https://www.trees.org.uk/Book-Shop/Products/GN14-Branch-Junctions-A-Classification-System-for-Arborists-en
26. ↵
    1. The UK Civil Aviation Authority

    . 2019. The Drone and Model Aircraft Code. West Sussex (United Kingdom): Civil Aviation Authority. [Updated 2022 December 1; Accessed 2022 April 30]. https://register-drones.caa.co.uk/drone-code/where-you-can-fly
27. ↵
    1. 3Dflow SRL

    . 2022. Version 8.6.0. Verona (Italy): 3Dflow SRL. [Updated 2022 March 25; Accessed 2022 April 30]. https://www.3dflow.net/3df-zephyr-photogrammetry-software