The geometrical accuracy of georeferenced digital surface models (DTM) obtained from images captured by micro-UAVs and processed by using structure from motion (SfM) photogrammetry depends on several factors, including flight design, camera quality, camera calibration, SfM algorithms and georeferencing strategy. This paper focusses on the critical role of the number and location of ground control points (GCP) used during the georeferencing stage. A challenging case study involving an area of 1200+ ha, 100+ GCP and 2500+ photos was used. Three thousand, four hundred and sixty-five different combinations of control points were introduced in the bundle adjustment, whilst the accuracy of the model was evaluated using both control points and independent check points. The analysis demonstrates how much the accuracy improves as the number of GCP points increases, as well as the importance of an even distribution, how much the accuracy is overestimated when it is quantified only using control points rather than independent check points, and how the ground sample distance (GSD) of a project relates to the maximum accuracy that can be achieved.

This study presents a comparison between the use of wearable laser scanning (WLS) and terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) devices for automatic tree detection with an estimation of two dendrometric variables: diameter at breast height (DBH) and total tree height (TH). Operative processes for data collection and automatic forest inventory are described in detail. The approach used is based on the clustering of points belonging to each individual tree, the isolation of the trunks, the iterative fitting of circles for the DBH calculation and the computation of the TH of each tree. TLS and WLS point clouds were compared by the statistical analysis of both estimated forest dendrometric parameters and the possible presence of bias. Results show that the apparent differences in point density and relative precision between both 3D forest models do not affect tree detection and DBH estimation. Nevertheless, tree height estimation using WLS appears to be affected by the limited scanning range of the WLS used in this study. TH estimations for trees below a certain height are equivalent using WLS or TLS, whereas TH of taller trees is clearly underestimated using WLS.