In the EU 2020 biodiversity strategy, maintaining and enhancing forest biodiversity is essential. Forest managers and technicians should include biodiversity monitoring as support for sustainible forest management and conservation issues, through the adoption of forest biodiversity indices. The present study investigates the potential of a new type of Structure from Motion (SfM) photogrammetry derived variables for modelling forest structure indicies, which do not require the availability of a digital terrain model (DTM) such as those obtainable from Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) surveys. The DTM-independent variables were calculated using raw 3D UAV photogrammetric data for modeling eight forest structure indices which are commonly used for forest biodiversity monitoring, namely: basal area (G); quadratic mean diameter (DBH<inf>mean</inf>); the standard deviation of Diameter at Breast Height (DBH<inf>σ</inf>); DBH Gini coefficient (Gini); the standard deviation of tree heights (H<inf>σ</inf>); dominant tree height (H<inf>dom</inf>); Lorey's height (H<inf>l</inf>); and growing stock volume (V). The study included two mixed temperate forests areas with a different type of management, with one area, left unmanaged for the past 50 years while the other being actively managed. A total of 30 field sample plots were measured in the unmanaged forest, and 50 field plots were measured in the actively managed forest. The accuracy of UAV DTM-independent predictions was compared with a benchmark approach based on traditional explanatory variables calculated from ALS data. Finally, DTM-independent variables were used to produce wall-to-wall maps of the forest structure indices in the two test areas and to estimate the mean value and its uncertainty according to a model-assisted regression estimators. DTM-independent variables led to similar predictive accuracy in terms of root mean square error compared to ALS in both study areas for the eight structure indices (DTM-independent average RMSE<inf>%</inf> = 20.5 and ALS average RMSE<inf>%</inf> = 19.8). Moreover, we found that the model-assisted estimation, with both DTM-independet and ALS, obtained lower standar errors (SE) compared to the one obtained by model-based estimation using only field plots. Relative efficiency coefficient (RE) revealed that ALS-based estimates were, on average, more efficient (average RE ALS = 3.7) than DTM-independent, (average RE DTM-independent = 3.3). However, the RE for the DTM-independent models was consistently larger than the one from the ALS models for the DBH-related variables (i.e. G, DBH<inf>mean</inf>, and DBH<inf>σ</inf>) and for V. This highlights the potential of DTM-independent variables, which not only can be used virtually on any forests (i.e., no need of a DTM), but also can produce as precise estimates as those from ALS data for key forest structural variables and substantially improve the efficiency of forest inventories. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd

The development of laser scanning technologies has gradually modified methods for forest mensuration and inventory. The main objective of this study is to assess the potential of integrating ALS and TLS data in a complex mixed Mediterranean forest for assessing a set of five single-tree attributes: tree position (TP), stem diameter at breast height (DBH), tree height (TH), crown base height (CBH) and crown projection area radii (CPAR). Four different point clouds were used: from ZEB1, a hand-held mobile laser scanner (HMLS), and from FARO® FOCUS 3D, a static terrestrial laser scanner (TLS), both alone or in combination with ALS. The precision of single-tree predictions, in terms of bias and root mean square error, was evaluated against data recorded manually in the field with traditional instruments. We found that: (i) TLS and HMLS have excellent comparable performances for the estimation of TP, DBH and CPAR; (ii) TH was correctly assessed by TLS, while the accuracy by HMLS was lower; (iii) CBH was the most difficult attribute to be reliably assessed and (iv) the integration with ALS increased the performance of the assessment of TH and CPAR with both HMLS and TLS. © 2018, © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

There is increasing awareness that structure-based indicators should be considered for assessing the biological value of late successional forests. In order to increase the unique habitat features critical for old-growth associated species, it is important to identify and rank candidate potential forest sites on the basis of their distinctive structural features. Data on living and deadwood components for the identification of old-growth condition are usually acquired in the considered forest stands by two sampling survey: (i) census performed in relatively large monitoring sites; (ii) network of small sampling units, on which inventory practices are usually based. Several authors argued that choosing between these survey strategies might have substantial effects on the values of common indicators of old-growth condition. Our study aims at (i) assessing the total estimate differences among old-growth structural indicators measured in field plots with different sizes, and (ii) defining the optimal sample size for the reliable assessment of such indicators. The study was carried out in six beech dominated forest stands on the Apennines range in Italy. In each stand, living and deadwood components were surveyed and geocoded in 1-ha square areas. Based on these dataset, circular plots with radii ranging from 4m up to 20m were then considered in order to quantify the effect of sampling plot size on the estimation of four structural indicators: (1) number of living trees; (2) number of large trees (dbh≥50cm); (3) total deadwood volume; (4) number of deadwood elements (snags, dead standing trees; lying dead trees, lying deadwood) with dbh (or average diameter for lying deadwood) ≥ 30cm. We found that the size of the sampling plots should be at least 500 m² in order to establish a database for the assessment of the investigated indicators. The census approach should be preferred to the sampling plot approach for old-growth forest stands smaller than 3-5ha. The achieved results contribute to define assessment protocols for characterizing and ranking the degree to which forest stands approximate old-growth condition based on standardized indicators. © 2015 Elsevier B.V.

Several regional initiatives and reporting efforts assess the state of forest biodiversity through broad-scale indicators based on data from national forest inventories. Although valuable, these indicators are essentially indirect and evaluate habitat quantity and quality rather than biodiversity per se. Therefore, their link to biodiversity may be weak, which decreases their usefulness for decision-making. For several decades, Forest Europe indicators assessed the state of European forests, in particular their biodiversity. However, no extensive study has been conducted to date to assess their performance – i.e. the capacity of the indicators to reflect variations in biodiversity – against multitaxonomic data. We hypothesized that no single biodiversity indicator from Forest Europe can represent overall forest biodiversity, but that several indicators would reflect habitat quality for at least some taxa in a comprehensive way. We tested the set of Forest Europe's indicators against the species richness of six taxonomic and functional groups across several hundreds of sampling units over Europe. We showed that, while some indicators perform relatively well across groups (e.g. deadwood volume), no single indicator represented all biodiversity at once, and that a combination of several indicators performed better. Forest Europe indicators were chosen for their availability and ease of understanding for most people. However, we showed that gaps in the monitoring framework persist, and that surveying certain taxa along with stand structure is necessary to support policymaking and tackle forest biodiversity loss at the large scale. Adding context (e.g. forest type) may also contribute to increase the performance of biodiversity indicators. © 2024 Elsevier Ltd