The installation of research or permanent plots is a very common task in growth and forest yield research. At young ages, tree height is the most commonly measured variable, so the location of individuals is necessary when repeated measures are taken and if spatial analysis is required. Identifying the coordinates of individual trees and re-measuring the height of all trees is difficult and particularly costly (in time and money). The data used comes from three Pinus pinaster Ait. and three Pinus radiata D. Don plantations of 0.8 ha, with an age ranging between 2 and 5 years and mean heights between 1 and 5 m. Five individual tree detection (ITD) methods are evaluated, based on the Canopy Height Model (CHM), where the height of each tree is identified, and its crown is segmented. Three CHM resolutions are used for each method. All algorithms used for individual tree detection (ITD) tend to underestimate the number of trees. The best results are obtained with the R package, ForestTools and rLiDAR. The best CHM resolution for identifying trees was always 10 cm. We did not detect any differences in the relative error (RE) between Pinus pinaster and Pinus radiata. We found a pattern in the ITD depending on the height of the trees to be detected: the accuracy is lower when detecting trees less than 1 m high than when detecting larger trees (RE close to 12% versus 1% for taller trees). Regarding the estimation of tree height, we can conclude that the use of the CHM to estimate height tends to underestimate its value, while the use of the point cloud presents practically unbiased results. The stakeout of forestry research plots and the re-measurement of individual tree heights is an operation that can be performed by UAV-based LiDAR scanning sensors. The individual geolocation of each tree and the measurement of heights versus pole and/or hypsometer measurement is highly accurate and cost-effective, especially when tree height reaches 1–1.5 m.

Controlling vegetation fuels around human settlements is a crucial strategy for reducing fire severity in forests, buildings and infrastructure, as well as protecting human lives. Each country has its own regulations in this respect, but they all have in common that by reducing fuel load, we in turn reduce the intensity and severity of the fire. The use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)-acquired data combined with other passive and active remote sensing data has the greatest performance to planning Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) fuelbreak through machine learning algorithms. Nine remote sensing data sources (active and passive) and four supervised classification algorithms (Random Forest, Linear and Radial Support Vector Machine and Artificial Neural Networks) were tested to classify five fuel-area types. We used very high-density Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data acquired by UAV (154 returns·m⁻² and ortho-mosaic of 5-cm pixel), multispectral data from the satellites Pleiades-1B and Sentinel-2, and low-density LiDAR data acquired by Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) (0.5 returns·m⁻², ortho-mosaic of 25 cm pixels). Through the Variable Selection Using Random Forest (VSURF) procedure, a pre-selection of final variables was carried out to train the model. The four algorithms were compared, and it was concluded that the differences among them in overall accuracy (OA) on training datasets were negligible. Although the highest accuracy in the training step was obtained in SVML (OA=94.46%) and in testing in ANN (OA=91.91%), Random Forest was considered to be the most reliable algorithm, since it produced more consistent predictions due to the smaller differences between training and testing performance. Using a combination of Sentinel-2 and the two LiDAR data (UAV and ALS), Random Forest obtained an OA of 90.66% in training and of 91.80% in testing datasets. The differences in accuracy between the data sources used are much greater than between algorithms. LiDAR growth metrics calculated using point clouds in different dates and multispectral information from different seasons of the year are the most important variables in the classification. Our results support the essential role of UAVs in fuelbreak planning and management and thus, in the prevention of forest fires.

Resilient cities incorporate a social, ecological, and technological systems perspective through their trees, both in urban and peri-urban forests and linear street trees, and help promote and understand the concept of ecosystem resilience. Urban tree inventories usually involve the collection of field data on the location, genus, species, crown shape and volume, diameter, height, and health status of these trees. In this work, we have developed a multi-stage methodology to update urban tree inventories in a fully automatic way, and we have applied it in the city of Pamplona (Spain). We have compared and combined two of the most common data sources for updating urban tree inventories: Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) point clouds combined with aerial orthophotographs, and street-level imagery from Google Street View (GSV). Depending on the data source, different methodologies were used to identify the trees. In the first stage, the use of individual tree detection techniques in ALS point clouds was compared with the detection of objects (trees) on street level images using computer vision (CV) techniques. In both cases, a high success rate or recall (number of true positive with respect to all detectable trees) was obtained, where between 85.07% and 86.42% of the trees were well-identified, although many false positives (FPs) or trees that did not exist or that had been confused with other objects were always identified. In order to reduce these errors or FPs, a second stage was designed, where FP debugging was performed through two methodologies: (a) based on the automatic checking of all possible trees with street level images, and (b) through a machine learning binary classification model trained with spectral data from orthophotographs. After this second stage, the recall decreased to about 75% (between 71.43 and 78.18 depending on the procedure used) but most of the false positives were eliminated. The results obtained with both data sources were robust and accurate. We can conclude that the results obtained with the different methodologies are very similar, where the main difference resides in the access to the starting information. While the use of street-level images only allows for the detection of trees growing in trafficable streets and is a source of information that is usually paid for, the use of ALS and aerial orthophotographs allows for the location of trees anywhere in the city, including public and private parks and gardens, and in many countries, these data are freely available.