The measurement of forest structure has evolved steadily due to advances in technology, methodology, and theory. Such advances have greatly increased our capacity to describe key forest structural elements and resulted in a range of measurement approaches from traditional analog tools such as measurement tapes to highly derived and computationally intensive methods such as advanced remote sensing tools (e.g., lidar, radar). This assortment of measurement approaches results in structural metrics unique to each method, with the caveat that metrics may be biased or constrained by the measurement approach taken. While forest structural diversity (FSD) metrics foster novel research opportunities, understanding how they are measured or derived, limitations of the measurement approach taken, as well as their biological interpretation is crucial for proper application. We review the measurement of forest structure and structural diversity—an umbrella term that includes quantification of the distribution of functional and biotic components of forests. We consider how and where these approaches can be used, the role of technology in measuring structure, how measurement impacts extend beyond research, and current limitations and potential opportunities for future research.

Lidar‐derived forest structural diversity (FSD) metrics—including measures of forest canopy height, vegetation arrangement, canopy cover (CC), structural complexity and leaf area and density—are increasingly used to describe forest structural characteristics and can be used to infer many ecosystem functions. Despite broad adoption, the importance of spatial resolution (grain and extent) over which these structural metrics are calculated remains largely unconsidered. Often researchers will quantify FSD at the spatial grain size of the process of interest without considering the scale dependency or statistical behaviour of the FSD metric employed. We investigated the appropriate scale of inference for eight lidar‐derived spatial metrics—CC, canopy relief ratio, foliar height diversity, leaf area index, mean and median canopy height, mean outer canopy height, and rugosity (R_T)‐‐representing five FSD categories—canopy arrangement, CC, canopy height, leaf area and density, and canopy complexity. Optimal scale was determined using the representative elementary area (REA) concept whereby the REA is the smallest grain size representative of the extent. Structural metrics were calculated at increasing canopy spatial grain (from 5 to 1000 m) from aerial lidar data collected at nine different forested ecosystems including sub‐boreal, broadleaf temperate, needleleaf temperate, dry tropical, woodland and savanna systems, all sites are part of the National Ecological Observatory Network within the conterminous United States. To identify the REA of each FSD metric, we used changepoint analysis via segmented or piecewise regression which identifies significant changepoints for both the magnitude and variance of each metric. We find that using a spatial grain size between 25 and 75 m sufficiently captures the REA of CC, canopy arrangement, canopy leaf area and canopy complexity metrics across multiple forest types and a grain size of 30–150 m captures the REA of canopy height metrics. However, differences were evident among forest types with higher REA necessary to characterize CC in evergreen needleleaf forests, and canopy height in deciduous broadleaved forests. These findings indicate the appropriate range of spatial grain sizes from which inferences can be drawn from this set of FSD metrics, informing the use of lidar‐derived structural metrics for research and management applications.

Large-extent maps of three-dimensional vegetation structure are important for understanding the hydrologic cycle, climate, carbon fluxes, and habitat. We aggregated over 7 billion lidar shots from the Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) to produce analysis-ready, gridded rasters of 36 vegetation structure metrics at three spatial resolutions (1, 6, and 12 km). We used 8 statistics to grid shots in every pixel, specifically the mean, bootstrapped standard error of the mean, median, standard deviation, interquartile range, Shannon’s Diversity Index, and shot count. We quantified uncertainty of the mean by randomly selecting 100 subsets of shots (i.e. bootstrapping) within each pixel. We also assessed the accuracy of several gridded metrics using fine spatial resolution airborne laser scanning data. The gridded metrics are generally more accurate at mid latitudes due to higher shot density and lower density of vegetation. Statistics associated with the central or maximum tendency of a metric are more accurate than statistics related to variability of metric values within the pixel.

Drivers of forest wildfire severity include fuels, topography and weather. However, because only fuels can be actively managed, quantifying their effects on severity has become an urgent research priority. Here we employed GEDI spaceborne lidar to consistently assess how pre-fire forest fuel structure affected wildfire severity across 42 California wildfires between 2019–2021. Using a spatial-hierarchical modeling framework, we found a positive concave-down relationship between GEDI-derived fuel structure and wildfire severity, marked by increasing severity with greater fuel loads until a decline in severity in the tallest and most voluminous forest canopies. Critically, indicators of canopy fuel volumes (like biomass and height) became decoupled from severity patterns in extreme topographic and weather conditions (slopes >20°; winds > 9.3 m/s). On the other hand, vertical continuity metrics like layering and ladder fuels more consistently predicted severity in extreme conditions – especially ladder fuels, where sparse understories were uniformly associated with lower severity levels. These results confirm that GEDI-derived fuel estimates can overcome limitations of optical imagery and airborne lidar for quantifying the interactive drivers of wildfire severity. Furthermore, these findings have direct implications for designing treatment interventions that target ladder fuels versus entire canopies and for delineating wildfire risk across topographic and weather conditions.