Understanding how the physical structure of forest canopies influences light absorption is a long‐standing area of inquiry fundamental to the physical sciences, including the modeling and interpretation of biogeochemical cycles. Conventional measures of forest canopy structure used to infer canopy light absorption are often limited to leaf or vegetation area indexes. However, LiDAR‐derived measures of canopy structural complexity (CSC) that describe the arrangement of vegetation may improve prediction of canopy light absorption by providing novel information on canopy‐light interactions not regulated by leaf area alone. We measured multiple indexes of CSC, vegetation area index (VAI), and the fraction of photosynthetically active radiation absorbed (fPAR) across the eastern United States using portable canopy LiDAR to evaluate how different canopy structural attributes relate to fPAR. Our survey included sites from the National Ecological Observation Network and university field stations. Measures of CSC were more strongly coupled with fPAR under high light (>1,000 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹PAR). Under low light conditions, when diffuse light predominates, light scattering weakens the dependency of fPAR on CSC. A multivariate model including CSC parameters and VAI explains ~89% of the intersite variance in fPAR, an improvement of over a VAI only linear model (r² = 0.73). The inclusion of CSC metrics in canopy light absorption models could increase confidence in predictions of biogeochemical cycles and energy balance.

1.Terrestrial LiDAR (light detection and ranging) technologies have created new means of quantifying forest canopy structure, allowing not only the estimation of biomass, but also descriptions of the position and variability of canopy elements in space. Such measures provide novel structural information broadly useful to ecologists. 2.There is a growing need for both a detailed taxonomy of forest canopy structural complexity (CSC) and open, transparent, and flexible tools to quantify complexity in ways that will advance foundational ecological knowledge of structure‐function relationships. 3.The CSC taxonomy we present groups structural descriptors into five categories: leaf area and density, canopy height, canopy arrangement, canopy openness, and canopy variability. This paper also introduces the R package forestr, the first open‐source R package for the calculation of CSC metrics from terrestrial LiDAR data. 4.The R package forestr is an analysis toolbox that works with portable canopy LiDAR (PCL) data and other pixelated/voxelized point clouds derived from terrestrial LiDAR scanning (TLS) data to calculate CSC metrics of interest to ecologists, modelers, forest managers, and remote sensing scientists.

Although variation in effect sizes and predicted values among studies of similar phenomena is inevitable, such variation far exceeds what might be produced by sampling error alone. One possible explanation for variation among results is differences among researchers in the decisions they make regarding statistical analyses. A growing array of studies has explored this analytical variability in different fields and has found substantial variability among results despite analysts having the same data and research question. Many of these studies have been in the social sciences, but one small “many analyst” study found similar variability in ecology. We expanded the scope of this prior work by implementing a large-scale empirical exploration of the variation in effect sizes and model predictions generated by the analytical decisions of different researchers in ecology and evolutionary biology. We used two unpublished datasets, one from evolutionary ecology (blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus, to compare sibling number and nestling growth) and one from conservation ecology (Eucalyptus, to compare grass cover and tree seedling recruitment). The project leaders recruited 174 analyst teams, comprising 246 analysts, to investigate the answers to prespecified research questions. Analyses conducted by these teams yielded 141 usable effects (compatible with our meta-analyses and with all necessary information provided) for the blue tit dataset, and 85 usable effects for the Eucalyptus dataset. We found substantial heterogeneity among results for both datasets, although the patterns of variation differed between them. For the blue tit analyses, the average effect was convincingly negative, with less growth for nestlings living with more siblings, but there was near continuous variation in effect size from large negative effects to effects near zero, and even effects crossing the traditional threshold of statistical significance in the opposite direction. In contrast, the average relationship between grass cover and Eucalyptus seedling number was only slightly negative and not convincingly different from zero, and most effects ranged from weakly negative to weakly positive, with about a third of effects crossing the traditional threshold of significance in one direction or the other. However, there were also several striking outliers in the Eucalyptus dataset, with effects far from zero. For both datasets, we found substantial variation in the variable selection and random effects structures among analyses, as well as in the ratings of the analytical methods by peer reviewers, but we found no strong relationship between any of these and deviation from the meta-analytic mean. In other words, analyses with results that were far from the mean were no more or less likely to have dissimilar variable sets, use random effects in their models, or receive poor peer reviews than those analyses that found results that were close to the mean. The existence of substantial variability among analysis outcomes raises important questions about how ecologists and evolutionary biologists should interpret published results, and how they should conduct analyses in the future.

Structural diversity is a key feature of forest ecosystems that influences ecosystem functions from local to macroscales. The ability to measure structural diversity in forests with varying ecological composition and management history can improve the understanding of linkages between forest structure and ecosystem functioning. Terrestrial LiDAR has often been used to provide a detailed characterization of structural diversity at local scales, but it is largely unknown whether these same structural features are detectable using aerial LiDAR data that are available across larger spatial scales. We used univariate and multivariate analyses to quantify cross-compatibility of structural diversity metrics from terrestrial versus aerial LiDAR in seven National Ecological Observatory Network sites across the eastern USA. We found strong univariate agreement between terrestrial and aerial LiDAR metrics of canopy height, openness, internal heterogeneity, and leaf area, but found marginal agreement between metrics that described heterogeneity of the outermost layer of the canopy. Terrestrial and aerial LiDAR both demonstrated the ability to distinguish forest sites from structural diversity metrics in multivariate space, but terrestrial LiDAR was able to resolve finer-scale detail within sites. Our findings indicated that aerial LiDAR could be of use in quantifying broad-scale variation in structural diversity across macroscales.

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.

The study of vegetation community and structural change has been central to ecology for over a century, yet the ways in which disturbances reshape the physical structure of forest canopies remain relatively unknown. Moderate severity disturbances affect different canopy strata and plant species, resulting in variable structural outcomes and ecological consequences. Terrestrial lidar (light detection and ranging) offers an unprecedented view of the interior arrangement and distribution of canopy elements, permitting the derivation of multidimensional measures of canopy structure that describe several canopy structural traits (CSTs) with known links to ecosystem function. We used lidar‐derived CSTs within a machine learning framework to detect and describe the structural changes that result from various disturbance agents, including moderate severity fire, ice storm damage, age‐related senescence, hemlock woolly adelgid, beech bark disease, and chronic acidification. We found that fire and ice storms primarily affected the amount and position of vegetation within canopies, while acidification, senescence, pathogen, and insect infestation altered canopy arrangement and complexity. Only two of the six disturbance agents significantly reduced leaf area, counter to common assumptions regarding many moderate severity disturbances. While findings are limited in their generalizability due to lack of replication among disturbances, they do suggest that the current limitations of standard disturbance detection methods—such as optical‐based remote sensing platforms, which are often above‐canopy perspectives—limit our ability to understand the full ecological and structural impacts of disturbance, and to evaluate the consistency of structural patterns within and among disturbance agents. A more broadly inclusive definition of ecological disturbance that incorporates multiple aspects of canopy structural change may potentially improve the modeling, detection, and prediction of functional implications of moderate severity disturbance as well as broaden our understanding of the ecological impacts of disturbance.