Author
Listed:
- Tasiyiwa Priscilla Muumbe
(Department for Earth Observation, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Löbdergraben 32, 07743 Jena, Germany)
- Pasi Raumonen
(Unit of Computing Sciences, Tampere University, Korkeakoulunkatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland)
- Jussi Baade
(Department of Physical Geography, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Löbdergraben 32, 07743 Jena, Germany)
- Corli Coetsee
(Savanna and Grassland Research Unit, Scientific Services, South African National Parks (SANParks), Skukuza 1350, South Africa
School of Natural Resource Management, Nelson Mandela University, George Campus, George 6530, South Africa)
- Jenia Singh
(Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA)
- Christiane Schmullius
(Department for Earth Observation, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Löbdergraben 32, 07743 Jena, Germany)
Abstract
Detecting trees accurately from terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) point clouds is crucial for processing terrestrial LiDAR data in individual tree analyses. Due to the heterogeneity of savanna ecosystems, our understanding of how various segmentation methods perform on savanna trees remains limited. Therefore, we compared two segmentation algorithms based on the ecological theory of resource distribution, which enables the prediction of the branching geometry of plants. This approach suggests that the shortest path along the vegetation from a point on the tree to the ground remains within the same tree. The algorithms were tested on a 15.2 ha plot scanned at 0.025° resolution during the dry season, using a Riegl VZ1000 Terrestrial Laser Scanner (TLS) in October 2019 at the Skukuza Flux Tower in Kruger National Park, South Africa. Individual tree segmentation was performed on the cloud using the comparative shortest-path (CSP) algorithm, implemented in LiDAR 360 (v 5.4), and the shortest path-based tree isolation method (SPBTIM), implemented in MATLAB (R2022a). The accuracy of each segmentation method was validated using 125 trees that were segmented and manually edited. Results were evaluated using recall ( r ), precision ( p ), and the F-score (F). Both algorithms detected (recall) 90% of the trees. The SPBTIM achieved a precision of 91%, slightly higher than the CSP’s 90%. Overall, both methods demonstrated an F-score of 0.90, indicating equal segmentation accuracy. Our findings suggest that both techniques can reliably segment savanna trees, with no significant difference between them in practical application. These results provide valuable insights into the suitability of each method for savanna ecosystems, which is essential for ecological monitoring and efficient TLS data processing workflows.
Suggested Citation
Tasiyiwa Priscilla Muumbe & Pasi Raumonen & Jussi Baade & Corli Coetsee & Jenia Singh & Christiane Schmullius, 2025.
"A Comparison of Tree Segmentation Methods for Savanna Tree Extraction from TLS Point Clouds,"
Land, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-25, August.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:9:p:1761-:d:1737890
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:9:p:1761-:d:1737890. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.