Comparative Accuracy and Precision Assessment of Survey Instruments for Teak Tree Height Measurement and Carbon Sequestration Estimation

Authors

  • Sarayut Malai Department of Civil Technology Program Program, Faculty of Industrial Technology, Lampang Rajabhat University, Lampang
  • Donrudee Sookjai Department of Physics Program, Faculty of Science, Lampang Rajabhat University, Lampang
  • Thiranan Sonkaew Department of Physics Program, Faculty of Science, Lampang Rajabhat University, Lampang
  • Lamay Junthakhao Department of Environmental Science Program, Faculty of Science, Lampang Rajabhat University, Lampang
  • Pincha Torkittikul Department of Civil Technology Program Program, Faculty of Industrial Technology, Lampang Rajabhat University, Lampang

Keywords:

Tree height measurement, Carbon sequestration, Carbon stock, Total station, Laser Rangefinder

Abstract

This study comparatively evaluated the accuracy and precision of three tree height measurement instruments: a Laser Rangefinder, a Total Station in Remote Elevation Measurement (REM) mode, and a Total Station in Coordinate mode. The research also compared their operational efficiency for teak tree height measurement and demonstrated their application in estimating carbon sequestration. This novel field-based validation offers a comparative analysis for commercially and ecologically significant teak (Tectona grandis), directly linking precise height measurements to carbon stock estimation and addressing the practical need for reliable, efficient survey methodologies in tropical forestry. Height measurements were conducted against a precisely determined reference under controlled offset conditions (-0.50, -0.25, 0.00, +0.25, +0.50 m from true vertical). Results indicated the Total Station (Coordinate mode) yielded the highest accuracy, precision, and overall efficiency, considering acceptable error margins. The Laser Rangefinder was the most rapid but exhibited lower accuracy and efficiency. Field measurements of 93 teak heights across all three instruments showed no statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level, a consistency observed in repeated and inter-user measurements. Carbon dioxide equivalent calculations of 76,554.19 kg revealed Coordinate mode estimates differed by only 1.29% from the Laser Rangefinder and 4.20% from the REM mode.

References

Abegg, M., Bösch, R., Kükenbrink, D., & Morsdorf, F. (2023). Tree volume estimation with terrestrial laser Scanning-Testing for bias in a 3D virtual environment. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 331, 109348.

Bonyad, A. E., & Mirzaei, M. (2016). Comparison of fixed area and distance sampling methods in open forests: case study of Zagros Forest, Iran. Journal of Forestry Research, 27, 1121-1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-016-0239-9.

Bragg, D. C., Frelich, L. E., Leverett, R. T., Blozan, W., & Luthringer, D. J. (2011). The sine method: An alternative height measurement technique (Research Note SRS-22). U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

Brown, S. (2002). Measuring Carbon in Forests: Current Status and Future Challenges. Environmental Pollution, 116(3), 363-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00212-3.

Coops, N. C., Irwin, L. A., Seely, H. S., & Hardy, S. J. (2025). Advances in Laser Scanning to Assess Carbon in Forests: From Ground-Based to Space-Based Sensors. Current Forestry Reports, 11(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-024-00242-4.

Hummel, S., Hudak, A. T., Uebler, E. H., Falkowski, M. J., & Megown, K. A. (2011). A comparison of accuracy and cost of LIDAR versus stand exam data for landscape management on the Malheur National Forest. Journal of Forestry, 109, 267-273. https://doi.org /10.1093 /jof / 109.5.267.

Husch, B., Beers, T. W., & Kershaw Jr., J. A. (2003). Forest Mensuration (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

NIKON VISION CO., LTD. (2019). Forestry Pro II: Instruction manual. Nikon Vision Co., Ltd. https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/544/Forestry_Pro_II.html.

Ogawa, H., Yoda, K., Ogino, K., & Kira, T. (1965). Comparative ecological studies on three main types of forest vegetation in Thailand II. Plant biomass. Nature and Life in Southeast Asia, 4, 49-80.

Pretzsch, H. (2009). Forest dynamics, growth, and yield: From measurement to model. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88307-4.

Pretzsch, H. (2014). Forest dynamics, growth, and yield models: Theory and applications. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40517-2.

Simonjan, V., & Shendyapina, S. (2020). Calculating the accuracy of strain observations of high-rise buildings and structures using electronic total stations. E3S Web of Conferences, 164, Article 02022. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016402022.

Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization. (2023). Thailand carbon credit market report 2023. Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization. https://www.tgo.or.th. (in Thai)

TOPCON. (2005). GPT-3000LN: Long range reflectorless total station. http://www.topcon. com. Sg/survey/gpt3000ln.html.

Zhou, L., Meng, R., Tan, Y., Lv, Z., Zhao, Y., Xu, B., & Zhao, F. (2022). Comparison of UAV-based LIDAR and digital aerial photogrammetry for measuring crown-level canopy height in the urban environment. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 69, 127489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127489.

Downloads

Published

2025-06-28

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 1 (2025): January - June 2025

Section

บทความวิจัย

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Wittayasara: Integration Apply Engineering and Industrial Technology

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.