Classification of Tree Species Based on LiDAR Point Cloud Data

Xiangyu Chen; Ting Yun; Lianfeng Xue; Ying'an Liu

doi:10.3788/LOP56.122801

Journals >Laser & Optoelectronics Progress >Volume 56 >Issue 12 >Page 122801 > Article

Laser & Optoelectronics Progress
Vol. 56, Issue 12, 122801 (2019)

Classification of Tree Species Based on LiDAR Point Cloud Data

Xiangyu Chen^1、**, Ting Yun¹, Lianfeng Xue¹, and Ying'an Liu^2、*

Author Affiliations

¹ College of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210037, China

² Library of Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210037, China

show less

DOI: 10.3788/LOP56.122801 Cite this Article Set citation alerts

Xiangyu Chen, Ting Yun, Lianfeng Xue, Ying'an Liu. Classification of Tree Species Based on LiDAR Point Cloud Data[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2019, 56(12): 122801 Copy Citation Text

show less

Examples of point cloud sample trees based on LiDAR system. (a) Metasequoia glyptostroboides; (b) Salix babylonica; (c) Ligustrum lucidum; (d) bamboo; (e) Malus pumila Mill.tree

Fig. 1. Examples of point cloud sample trees based on LiDAR system. (a) Metasequoia glyptostroboides; (b) Salix babylonica; (c) Ligustrum lucidum; (d) bamboo; (e) Malus pumila Mill.tree

Download full size

Fig. 2. Experimental flow chart

Download full size

Fig. 3. Preprocessing diagram for point cloud of Qianjiang new town Forest Park in Hangzhou collected by LiDAR

Download full size

Fig. 4. Preprocessing diagram for point cloud of Hongqipo farm in Akesu Prefecture, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region collected by LiDAR

Download full size

Fig. 5. Location relationship between central voxels and adjacent voxels in 13 directions of 3D space

Download full size

Fig. 6. Segmentation diagram. (a) Initial scanned data of sample tree; (b) extracted leaf points using branch leaf segment algorithm; (c) voxelization for scanned leaf points; (d) top view for leaf point cloud divided into 8 parts; (e) 1st part and 8th part after division

Download full size

Fig. 7. Overall classification accuracy results

Download full size

Tree specie	Metasequoiaglyptostroboides	Salixbabylonica	Ligustrumlucidum	Bamboo	Maluspumila Mill.	Leakagerate /%	Misjudgedrate /%
Metasequoia glyptostroboides	15	0	2	0	0	16.67	11.76
Salix babylonica	1	11	0	1	2	21.43	26.67
Ligustrum lucidum	1	2	15	1	0	25	21.05
Bamboo	0	1	1	25	0	7.41	7.41
Malus pumila Mill.	1	0	2	0	19	9.52	13.63
Total	18	14	20	27	21	—	—
Correct rate /%	83.33	78.57	75	92.59	90.48	—	—
Overall accuracy /%	85	—	—

Table 1. 0 Classification results of tree species based on all parameters

Specie	Number of trees	Average treeheight /m	Average crownwidth /m	Average crownvolume /m³	Average number ofscanned points
Metasequoia glyptostroboides	54	25.09±2.36	6.67±0.64	468.85±38.49	42884
Salix babylonica	42	12.97±1.17	9.11±1.18	430.24±36.34	39861
Ligustrum lucidum	60	10.31±1.08	5.26±0.63	131.22±12.45	12854
Bamboo	81	12.95±1.53	2.42±0.41	33.37±3.36	4324
Malus pumila Mill.	63	8.76±0.74	7.62±0.86	233.97±21.17	24339

Table 1. Parameter statistics for sample trees

Specie	Number oftrainingsamples	Number ofvalidationsamples	Totalnumber
Metasequoiaglyptostroboides	36	18	54
Salix babylonica	28	14	42
Ligustrumlucidum	40	20	60
Bamboo	54	27	81
Maluspumila Mill.	42	21	63
Total	200	100	300

Table 3. Number of training samples and validation samples

Tree specie	Metasequoiaglyptostroboides	Salixbabylonica	Ligustrumlucidum	Bamboo	Maluspumila Mill.	Leakagerate /%	Misjudgedrate /%
Metasequoia glyptostroboides	10	2	2	0	3	44.44	41.18
Salix babylonica	2	10	7	3	4	28.57	61.54
Ligustrum lucidum	0	0	6	3	0	70	33.33
Bamboo	2	2	0	18	0	33.33	18.18
Malus pumila Mill.	4	0	5	3	14	33.33	46.15
Total	18	14	20	27	21	—	—
Correct rate /%	55.56	71.43	30	66.67	66.67	—	—
Overall accuracy /%	58	—	—

Table 4. Classification results of tree species based on SF parameters

Tree specie	Metasequoiaglyptostroboides	Salixbabylonica	Ligustrumlucidum	Bamboo	Maluspumila Mill.	Leakagerate /%	Misjudgedrate /%
Metasequoia glyptostroboides	11	2	2	0	3	38.89	38.89
Salix babylonica	1	9	5	4	3	35.71	59.09
Ligustrum lucidum	1	3	11	4	0	45	42.11
Bamboo	3	0	0	18	0	33.33	14.29
Malus pumila Mill.	2	0	2	1	15	28.57	25
Total	18	14	20	27	21	—	—
Correct rate /%	61.11	64.29	55	66.67	71.43	—	—
Overall accuracy /%	64	—	—

Table 5. Classification results of tree species based on TF parameters

Tree specie	Metasequoiaglyptostroboides	Salixbabylonica	Ligustrumlucidum	Bamboo	Maluspumila Mill.	Leakagerate /%	Misjudgedrate /%
Metasequoia glyptostroboides	11	1	2	3	1	38.89	38.89
Salix babylonica	3	8	5	2	3	42.86	61.9
Ligustrum lucidum	3	3	10	4	1	50	52.38
Bamboo	0	0	2	17	2	37.04	19.05
Malus pumila Mill.	1	2	1	1	14	33.33	26.32
Total	18	14	20	27	21	—	—
Correct rate /%	61.11	57.14	50	62.96	66.67	—	—
Overall accuracy /%	60	—	—

Table 6. Classification results of tree species based on CF parameters

Tree specie	Metasequoiaglyptostroboides	Salixbabylonica	Ligustrumlucidum	Bamboo	Maluspumila Mill.	Leakagerate /%	Misjudgedrate /%
Metasequoia glyptostroboides	14	1	1	3	1	22.22	30
Salix babylonica	2	10	3	0	2	28.57	41.18
Ligustrum lucidum	2	2	12	2	0	40	33.33
Bamboo	0	0	3	21	2	22.22	19.23
Malus pumila Mill.	0	1	1	1	16	23.81	15.79
Total	18	14	20	27	21	—	—
Correct rate /%	77.78	71.43	60	77.78	76.19	—	—
Overall accuracy /%	73	—	—

Table 7. Classification results of tree species based on SF and TF parameters

Tree specie	Metasequoiaglyptostroboides	Salixbabylonica	Ligustrumlucidum	Bamboo	Maluspumila Mill.	Leakagerate /%	Misjudgedrate /%
Metasequoia glyptostroboides	14	0	2	2	1	22.22	26.32
Salix babylonica	2	9	3	1	3	37.71	50
Ligustrum lucidum	1	2	11	3	0	45	35.29
Bamboo	0	1	2	21	2	22.22	19.23
Malus pumila Mill.	1	2	2	0	15	28.57	25
Total	18	14	20	27	21	—	—
Correct rate /%	77.78	62.29	55	77.78	71.43	—	—
Overall accuracy /%	70	—	—

Table 8. Classification results of tree species based on SF and CF parameters

Tree specie	Metasequoiaglyptostroboides	Salixbabylonica	Ligustrumlucidum	Bamboo	Maluspumila Mill.	Leakagerate /%	Misjudgedrate /%
Metasequoia glyptostroboides	15	0	3	0	2	16.67	25
Salix babylonica	1	10	2	0	1	28.57	28.57
Ligustrum lucidum	1	2	13	2	0	35	27.77
Bamboo	0	0	1	23	2	14.81	11.54
Malus pumila Mill.	1	2	1	2	16	23.81	27.27
Total	18	14	20	27	21	—	—
Correct rate /%	83.33	71.43	65	85.19	76.19	—	—
Overall accuracy /%	77	—	—

Table 9. Classification results of tree species based on TF and CF parameters

Xiangyu Chen, Ting Yun, Lianfeng Xue, Ying'an Liu. Classification of Tree Species Based on LiDAR Point Cloud Data[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2019, 56(12): 122801

Download Citation

Set citation alerts for the article

Tools

Set citation alerts for the article

Save the article for my favorites

Paper Information