Mobile terrestrial laser scanner vs. UAV photogrammetry to estimate woody crop canopy parameters – Part 1: Methodology and comparison in vineyards.

• Ground LiDAR- and aerial photogrammetry-derived parameters presented differences. • Height 90th percentile, as a smoothed parameter, presented smaller differences. • A balance needs to be found as each system presents opposed pros and cons. • Terrestrial LiDAR-based systems allow smaller areas to be scanned more accurately. • UAV photogrammetry allows larger areas to be monitored with less detail. Characterizing crop canopies is especially important in the management of woody crops. In this article, two systems were compared to characterise a 50 m long vineyard row section. One of the systems was a mobile terrestrial laser scanner based on a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor (MTLS-LiDAR). The other was an uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) based system using digital aerial photogrammetry (UAV-DAP). The resulting 3D point clouds were assessed qualitatively and quantitatively. Canopy heights, widths and volumes were obtained in 0.1 m long sections along the studied row. All the parameters derived from the two systems presented statistically significant differences. The coefficients of determination between systems were 0.619 for canopy maximum heights above ground level (agl), 0.686 for 90th percentile (P90) heights agl, and 0.283 and 0.274 for maximum and P90 vegetated heights, respectively. Coefficients of determination between averaged maximum canopy width and P90 canopy width were 0.328 and 0.317, respectively. Coefficients of determination between cross-sectional areas determined from maximum widths, P90 widths and from the occupancy grid method were 0.423, 0.409 and 0.334, respectively. Total canopy volume for the entire row obtained from the three cross section estimation methods differed between 19 m3 and 25 m3. The reasons found were that the MTLS-LiDAR-derived point cloud captured the canopy top and side variability but could be affected by occlusions, mixed pixels and tall grass-like weeds present in the surveyed area. For its part, the UAV-DAP-derived point cloud tended to miss top and side shoots and somewhat smoothed canopy variability. As neither of the systems is optimal, a balance needs to be found according to the specific requirements of the survey. For this purpose, a list of pros and cons is presented to support the selection of one of the two systems for canopy monitoring. The MTLS-LiDAR system should be chosen when high detail is required but small areas are to be scanned. Alternatively, the UAV-DAP system should be chosen when large areas are to be monitored and when canopy detail is not so important. Further results are presented in Part 2 for a larger area and including pear and peach orchards with different training systems. Future research is to be conducted on how the compared systems affect variability detection and support variable-rate prescriptions.. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]