The increasingly affordable price point of terrestrial laser scanners has led to a democratization of instrument availability, but the most common low-cost instruments have yet to be compared in terms of the consistency to measure forest structural attributes. Here, we compared two low-cost terrestrial laser scanners (TLS): the Leica BLK360 and the Faro Focus 120 3D. We evaluate the instruments in terms of point cloud quality, forest inventory estimates, tree-model reconstruction, and foliage profile reconstruction. Our direct comparison of the point clouds showed reduced noise in filtered Leica data. Tree diameter and height were consistent across instruments (4.4% and 1.4% error, respectively). Volumetric tree models were less consistent across instruments, with ~29% bias, depending on model reconstruction quality. In the process of comparing foliage profiles, we conducted a sensitivity analysis of factors affecting foliage profile estimates, showing a minimal effect from instrument maximum range (for forests less than ~50 m in height) and surprisingly little impact from degraded scan resolution. Filtered unstructured TLS point clouds must be artificially re-gridded to provide accurate foliage profiles. The factors evaluated in this comparison point towards necessary considerations for future low-cost laser scanner development and application in detecting forest structural parameters.

Phenology is one of the ubiquitous fingerprints of climate change on our ecosystems. Monitoring the spatiotemporal patterns of vegetation phenology is thus critical. A wide range of sensors have been used to monitor vegetation phenology. Sensor point of view and resolution can potentially impact estimates of phenology. We compared three different sensors from three different remote sensing platforms—a UAV mounted RGB camera, an under canopy, upward facing hemispherical camera with R, G and NIR capabilities, and a tower mounted RGB PhenoCam—to estimate spring phenological transition in a mixed-species temperate forest in central Virginia, USA. Our study had two objectives: 1) to compare the above- and below- canopy inference of canopy greenness (green chromatic coordinate and normalized difference vegetation index) and canopy structural attributes (leaf area and gap fraction) by matching under-canopy hemispherical photos with high spatial resolution (0.03 m) drone imagery to find the appropriate spatial coverage and resolution for comparison; 2) to compare how each sensor performed in estimating the temporality of the spring phenological transition. We find that a spatial buffer of 20 m radius for UAV imagery is most closely comparable to under-canopy imagery in this system. Sensors and platforms agree within +/- 5 days of when canopy greenness stabilizes from the spring phenophase into the growing season. This work has implications for paring UAV imagery with both tower-based observation platforms, as well as plot-based studies (e.g. long-term monitoring, existing research networks, permanent plots).