3Dtrees.earth 上线：近距 LiDAR 树木与森林分析社区研究基础设施

Janusch Vajna-Jehle  Affiliation: Chair of Sensor-based Geoinformatics (geosense), University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany Affiliation: These authors contributed equally to this work. Affiliation: Corresponding author: Janusch Vajna-Jehle, janusch.jehle@geosense.uni-freiburg.de.    Kilian Gerberding  Affiliation: Chair of Sensor-based Geoinformatics (geosense), University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany Affiliation: These authors contributed equally to this work.    Daniel Lusk  Affiliation: Chair of Sensor-based Geoinformatics (geosense), University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Teja Kattenborn  Affiliation: Chair of Sensor-based Geoinformatics (geosense), University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Julia Sophie Gäßler  Affiliation: Chair of Sensor-based Geoinformatics (geosense), University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Anna Göritz  Affiliation: Chair of Sensor-based Geoinformatics (geosense), University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Luis Kremer  Affiliation: Chair of Sensor-based Geoinformatics (geosense), University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Charlotte Lange  Affiliation: Chair of Sensor-based Geoinformatics (geosense), University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Aaron Sheppard Affiliation: Chair of Sensor-based Geoinformatics (geosense), University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Salim Soltani  Affiliation: Chair of Sensor-based Geoinformatics (geosense), University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Jesús Aguirre Gutiérrez  Affiliation: Biodiversity and Earth Observation Lab, Georgina Mace Centre for the Living Planet, Imperial College London, Ascot, UK Affiliation: Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Affiliation: Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Affiliation: Facultad de Ciencias Forestales y Ambientales, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, Durango, Mexico    Muhammad Ali  Affiliation: Chair of Forest Growth and Dendroecology, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany    Thaís Chaves Almeida  Affiliation: ForestEyes Research Group, Department of Forest Sciences, Federal University of Paraná, 80210-170, Curitiba, Brazil    Dominik Ambs  Affiliation: Tree Growth and Wood Physiology, TUM School of Life Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Hans-Carl-v.-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany    Katharina Anders  Affiliation: TUM Remote Sensing Applications, School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich       Tito Arevalo-Ramirez  Affiliation: Department of Electrical Engineering and Department of Mechanical Engineering and Metallurgy, School of Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile    Rasmus Astrup  Affiliation: Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Høgskoleveien 7, 1431 Ås, Norway    Andrés Avella  Affiliation: Programa de Ingeniería Forestal, Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas    Yuchen Bai  Affiliation: Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany    Harm Bartholomeus  Affiliation: Laboratory of Geo-Information Science and Remote Sensing, Wageningen University, The Netherlands    Owain Barton  Affiliation: University of Alberta Affiliation: Bangor University    Rolf Becker  Affiliation: Faculty of Communication and Environment, Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences, Kamp-Lintfort, Germany    Kevin Beiler Affiliation: Department Forest-Wood-Environment, Eberswalde University of Sustainable Development, Alfred-Möller-Straße 1, 16225 Eberswalde, Germany    Mirela Beloiu  Affiliation: ETH Zurich    Matthias Bode  Affiliation: Chair of Silviculture, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Michał Brach  Affiliation: Department of Forest Utilisation, Geomatics and Land Management, Institute of Forest Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, 159 Nowoursynowska St., 02-776 Warsaw, Poland    John Brandt  Affiliation: World Resources Institute    Joshua Braun-Wimmer  Affiliation: Chair of Forest Growth and Dendroecology, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany    Benjamin Brede  Affiliation: GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Remote Sensing and Geoinformatics Section, Telegrafenberg, 14473 Potsdam, Germany    Seppe Bresseleers  Affiliation: Plants and Ecosystems (PLECO), Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium    Dominik Brétt  Affiliation: Department of Geoinformatics, Faculty of Environment, Jan Evangelista Purkyne University in Usti nad Labem, Usti nad Labem, Czech Republic    Luke A. Brown  Affiliation: Department of Geography, King’s College London, London, WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom    Julius Steffen Brune  Affiliation: Landesforstanstalt Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Department of Forest Planning / Forest Research / Information Systems, Research Unit Silviculture and Forest Growth, Zeppelinstrasse 3, 19061 Schwerin, Germany    Ramazan Bülbül  Affiliation: Department Forest-Wood-Environment, Eberswalde University of Sustainable Development, Alfred-Möller-Straße 1, 16225 Eberswalde, Germany    Josafat-Mattias Burmeister  Affiliation: Digital Engineering Faculty, University of Potsdam, Prof.-Dr.-Helmert-Straße 2-3, 14482 Potsdam, Germany    James Burridge  Affiliation: Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.    Carlos Cabo  Affiliation: Department of Mining Exploitation and Prospecting, University of Oviedo, Mieres 33600, Spain    Kim Calders  Affiliation: Q-ForestLab, Department of Environment, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Belgium    Isaias Caluvino  Affiliation: ISCED Huila    Mariana Campos  Affiliation: Department of Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry, Finnish Geospatial Research Institute (FGI), National Land Survey of Finland    Anna Candotti  Affiliation: Free University of Bozen-Bolzano    Ergin Cagatay Cankaya  Affiliation: University of Alberta    Juan Pedro Carbonell-Rivera  Affiliation: Integrated Remote Sensing Studio, Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada    Arnaud Carrara  Affiliation: Fundación CEAM, Parque Tecnológico, C/ Charles R. Darwin, 14, Paterna, Spain    Guilherme Castro  Affiliation: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK    Jeannine Cavender-Bares  Affiliation: Harvard University    Wout Cherlet  Affiliation: Ghent University    Zane Cooper  Affiliation: Q-ForestLab, Department of Environment, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Belgium    Isamar Cortes  Affiliation: Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Affiliation: Biodiversity and Earth Observation Lab, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK    Pablo Crespo-Peremarch  Affiliation: Geo-Environmental Cartography and Remote Sensing Group (CGAT), Department of Cartographic Engineering, Geodesy and Photogrammetry, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain    Darius Culvenor  Affiliation: Environmental Sensing Systems, Melbourne, Australia    Domingos Fortunato P. F. da Silva  Affiliation: Department of Exact and Natural Sciences of ISCED - Huambo, Avenida Allioun Blondy Beye - Academic District, P.O. Box No. 2376, Huambo, Angola    Ana Paula Dalla Corte  Affiliation: ForestEyes Research Group, Department of Forest Sciences, Federal University of Paraná, 80210-170, Curitiba, Brazil    Karun Dayal  Affiliation: Ghent University    Cédric de Crousaz Affiliation: Hexagon    Geike De Sloover  Affiliation: Q-ForestLab, Department of Environment, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Belgium Affiliation: Plants and Ecosystems (PLECO), Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium    Carlos Roberto de Souza Filho  Affiliation: Geosciences Institute, University of Campinas, PO Box 6152, 13083-855, Campinas, Brazil    Jose Delpiano  Affiliation: Universidad de los Andes, Chile    Jan Dempewolf  Affiliation: Bavarian State Institute of Forestry (LWF), Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 1, 85354 Freising, Germany    Marius Derenthal  Affiliation: Remote Sensing and Geoinformatics, Institute of Geographical Sciences, Department of Earth Sciences, Freie Universität Berlin, 12249 Berlin, Germany    Kyle G. Dexter  Affiliation: Università di Torino    Barbara D’hont  Affiliation: Plants and Ecosystems (PLECO), Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium    Ricardo Díaz-Delgado  Affiliation: Doñana Biological Station-CSIC    Mathias Disney  Affiliation: Department of Geography, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK Affiliation: NERC National Centre for Earth Observation (NCEO)    Svenja Dobelmann  Affiliation: University of Applied Sciences and Arts Göttingen (HAWK) - Faculty of Resource Management, Büsgenweg 1a, 37077 Göttingen    Marcel Dogotari  Affiliation: Department of Landscape Ecology and Resources Management, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 26-32, Giessen, 35392, Germany Affiliation: Faculty of Communication and Environment, Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences, Kamp-Lintfort, Germany    David Michael Drew  Affiliation: Department of Forest and Wood Sciences, Stellenbosch University    Simon Ecke  Affiliation: Bavarian State Institute of Forestry (LWF), Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 1, 85354 Freising, Germany    Markus P Eichhorn  Affiliation: School of Biological Earth and Environmental Sciences, University College Cork, Distillery Fields, North Mall, T23 N73K, Ireland Affiliation: Sustainability Institute, Lee Road, Sunday’s Well, Cork T23 XE10, Ireland    Nico Eisenhauer  Affiliation: German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstraße 4, 04103 Leipzig, Germany Affiliation: Institute of Biology, Leipzig University, Puschstraße 4, 04103 Leipzig, Germany    Paul Michael Eisenschink  Affiliation: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Department of Geography    Jan Eitel  Affiliation: University of Idaho    Tarek S. El-Madany  Affiliation: Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany    Anette Eltner  Affiliation: Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Dresden University of Technology, 01069 Dresden, Germany    Léa Enguehard  Affiliation: GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Remote Sensing and Geoinformatics Section, Telegrafenberg, 14473 Potsdam, Germany    Anika Erxleben-Eggenhofer  Affiliation: Central Data Facility, University of Freiburg, Freiburg i.Br., Germany    Arvin Fakhri  Affiliation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, 1432, Ås, Norway    Luca Zsofia Farkas  Affiliation: Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Potsdam    Fabian Fassnacht  Affiliation: BOKU University, Vienna    Hannes Feilhauer  Affiliation: Institute for Earth System Science and Remote Sensing, Leipzig University, Talstr. 35 04103, Leipzig, Germany    Tomma Feltgen  Affiliation: Chair of Silviculture, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Jasper Feyen  Affiliation: Q-ForestLab, Department of Environment, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Belgium    Rico Fischer  Affiliation: Institute for Forest Protection, Julius Kühn Institute (JKI), Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Erwin-Baur-Str. 27, 06484 Quedlinburg, Germany    Donna Fitzgerald  Affiliation: School of Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences, College of Sciences, Adelaide University    Michael Förster  Affiliation: Technische Universitaet Berlin    Oluwaseun Friday Gakenou  Affiliation: Department of Forest and Wood Sciences, Stellenbosch University    Sebastian Ignacio Galaz Trincado  Affiliation: Universidad de los Andes, Chile    Matthias Gassilloud  Affiliation: Chair of Sensor-based Geoinformatics (geosense), University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Joschka Geissler  Affiliation: Chair of Hydrology, University of Freiburg, Friedrichstraße 39, 79098 Freiburg, Germany Affiliation: Future Forests Cluster of Excellence, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Bert Gielen  Affiliation: Plants and Ecosystems (PLECO), Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium    John L. Godlee  Affiliation: Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, USA Affiliation: School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FF, United Kingdom    Roy González-M.  Affiliation: Departamento de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad del Tolima    Daniel Goss  Affiliation: School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK    Dirk Gremser Affiliation: Staatsbetrieb Sachsenforst, Germany    Amy Gresham  Affiliation: School of Environmental and Natural Sciences, Bangor University, United Kingdom Affiliation: Department of Zoology, Conservation Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EJ, UK    Stuart W.D. Grieve  Affiliation: Department of Geography and Environmental Science, Queen Mary University of London    André Große-Stoltenberg  Affiliation: Department of Landscape Ecology and Resources Management, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 26-32, Giessen, 35392, Germany Affiliation: Centre for International Development and Environmental Research (ZEU), Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany    Björn Grüning  Affiliation: Bioinformatics Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Marcus Guderle  Affiliation: Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany    Claudia Guimarães-Steinicke  Affiliation: Institute for Earth System Science and Remote Sensing, Leipzig University, Talstr. 35 04103, Leipzig, Germany Affiliation: German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstraße 4, 04103 Leipzig, Germany    Wei Guo  Affiliation: Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.    J. Antonio Guzmán Q.  Affiliation: Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 02138 USA    Tomás Guzmán  Affiliation: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile    Peter Hajek  Affiliation: Geobotany, Faculty of Biology, University of Freiburg, Schänzlestraße 1, Freiburg im Breisgau, 79104 Germany    Tomáš Hanousek  Affiliation: Global Change Research Institute CAS    Andreas Hanzl  Affiliation: Technical University of Munich, School of Life Sciences, Earth Observation for Ecosystem Management, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany    Henrik Hartmann  Affiliation: Institute for Forest Protection, Julius Kühn Institute (JKI), Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Erwin-Baur-Str. 27, 06484 Quedlinburg, Germany Affiliation: Faculty of Forest Sciences and Forest Ecology, Georg-August University Göttingen, Germany Affiliation: Department of Biogeochemical Processes, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Germany    John R. Healey  Affiliation: School of Environmental and Natural Sciences, Bangor University, United Kingdom    Christine Hechtl  Affiliation: Department of National Park Monitoring and Animal Management, Bavarian Forest National Park, Freyunger Straße 2, D-94481 Grafenau, Germany    Hanne Hendrickx  Affiliation: Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Dresden University of Technology, 01069 Dresden, Germany    Elkin Hernández  Affiliation: Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia    Martin Herold  Affiliation: GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Remote Sensing and Geoinformatics Section, Telegrafenberg, 14473 Potsdam, Germany    Miriam Herrmann  Affiliation: Remote Sensing and Geoinformatics, Institute of Geographical Sciences, Department of Earth Sciences, Freie Universität Berlin, 12249 Berlin, Germany    Marco Heurich  Affiliation: Department of National Park Monitoring and Animal Management, Bavarian Forest National Park, Freyunger Straße 2, D-94481 Grafenau, Germany Affiliation: Wildlife Ecology and Management, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Straße 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany Affiliation: Institute for Forest and Wildlife Management, Campus Evenstad, University of Inland Norway, 2480 Koppang, Norway    Bruce Hoagland  Affiliation: Department of Geography & Environmental Sustainability, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, United States    Bernhard Höfle  Affiliation: 3DGeo Research Group, Institute of Geography, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany Affiliation: Interdisciplinary Center for Scientific Computing (IWR), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany    Álvaro Idárraga-Piedrahíta  Affiliation: Jardín Botánico de Medellín    Viorel Ilinca  Affiliation: Geological Institute of Romania    Hiroyoshi Iwata  Affiliation: Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.    Robert Jackisch  Affiliation: Geoinformation in Environmental Planning Lab, Technische Universität Berlin, Strasse des 17. Juni 145, 10623, Berlin, Germany    Marie Jossé  Affiliation: Data Terra (CNRS)    Markus Karppinen Affiliation: PreFor    Christoph Kasper  Affiliation: Forestry Research and Competence Centre, ThüringenForst-AöR, Jägerstraße 1, 99867 Gotha, Germany    Marko Kazimirovic  Affiliation: Department of Forestry and nature protection, Faculty of Forestry, University of Belgrade    Niamh Kelly  Affiliation: Sustainable Forest Ecosystems, Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen University & Research, the Netherlands    Milan Kilibarda  Affiliation: Department of Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Belgrade    Till Kleinebecker  Affiliation: Department of Landscape Ecology and Resources Management, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 26-32, Giessen, 35392, Germany Affiliation: Centre for International Development and Environmental Research (ZEU), Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany    Hans-Joachim Klemmt  Affiliation: Bavarian State Institute of Forestry (LWF), Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 1, 85354 Freising, Germany    Stefan Reder Koithahn  Affiliation: Department Forest-Wood-Environment, Eberswalde University of Sustainable Development, Alfred-Möller-Straße 1, 16225 Eberswalde, Germany    Kolmogorov Alexey Ivanovich  Affiliation: North-Eastern Federal University Affiliation: Siberian Federal University    Michael Körner Affiliation: Staatsbetrieb Sachsenforst, Germany    Nikos Koutsias  Affiliation: Department of Sustainable Agriculture, University of Patras, G. Seferi 2, GR-31132 Agrinio, Greece.    Kamil Král  Affiliation: Department of Forest Ecology, Landscape Research Institute, Brno, Czech Republic    Bartłomiej Kraszewski  Affiliation: Department of Geomatics, Forest Research Institute, Poland    Grzegorz Krok  Affiliation: Digital Twin Team, IDEAS Research Institute, ul. Królewska 27, 00-060, Warszawa, Poland    Katja Kröner  Affiliation: Chair of Forest Growth and Dendroecology, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany    Martin Krůček  Affiliation: Department of Forest Ecology, Landscape Research Institute, Brno, Czech Republic    Robert Krüger  Affiliation: Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Dresden University of Technology, 01069 Dresden, Germany    Stefan Kruse  Affiliation: Polar Terrestrial Environmental Systems, Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Potsdam, Germany    Daniel Kükenbrink  Affiliation: Landchange Science, Swiss Federal Institute WSL, Zürcherstrasse 111, Birmensdorf, CH-8903, Switzerland    Maksymilian Kulicki  Affiliation: IDEAS Research Institute    Kudzai Ngqabutho Kundishora  Affiliation: Department of Forest and Wood Sciences, Stellenbosch University    Mira Kuntz  Affiliation: University of Freiburg    Sunni Kanta Prasad Kushwaha  Affiliation: Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL    Erico Kutchartt  Affiliation: Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia (CTFC), Carretera de Sant Llorenç de Morunys, Km 2, 25280 Solsona, Spain    Diego Laino  Affiliation: Biodiversity Research Institute (IMIB), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)-University of Oviedo-Principality of Asturias, Mieres 33600, Spain    Christian Lanconelli  Affiliation: Unisystems, Via Michelangelo Buonarroti 39, 20145 Milan, Italy    Christa Lang Affiliation: State Office for Nature, Environment, and Climate (LANUK), Nationalpark Eifel, Germany    Elena Larysch  Affiliation: Chair of Forest Growth and Dendroecology, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany    Guillaume Lassalle  Affiliation: Geosciences Institute, University of Campinas, PO Box 6152, 13083-855, Campinas, Brazil    Alvaro Lau  Affiliation: Laboratory of Geo-Information Science and Remote Sensing, Wageningen University, The Netherlands    Sung-Ching Lee  Affiliation: Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany    Jan RK Lehmann  Affiliation: Institute of Landscape Ecology, University of Münster, Germany    Maurice Leponce  Affiliation: Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences    Bas Lerink  Affiliation: Sustainable Forest Ecosystems, Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen University & Research, the Netherlands    Shaun R. Levick  Affiliation: CSIRO Environment, Australia    Emily R. Lines  Affiliation: Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Site, Cambridge CB2 3EN, United Kingdom    Maciej Lisiewicz  Affiliation: Department of Geomatics, Forest Research Institute, Poland    René López-Camacho  Affiliation: Programa de Ingeniería Forestal, Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas    Linda Luck  Affiliation: GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences    Miguel Mahecha  Affiliation: Institute for Earth System Science and Remote Sensing, Leipzig University, Talstr. 35 04103, Leipzig, Germany Affiliation: German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstraße 4, 04103 Leipzig, Germany Affiliation: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Leipzig, Germany Affiliation: Center for Scalable Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence (ScaDS.AI), Leipzig, Germany    Mirko Mälicke  Affiliation: Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany    Chiara Mansi  Affiliation: Department of Ecological and Biological Sciences, University of Tuscia, Largo dell’Universita s/n, 01100 Viterbo, Italy    Usama Manzoor Affiliation: Universiti Brunei Darussalam    Olivier Martin-Ducup  Affiliation: CIRAD UMR-AMAP    Mauro Marty  Affiliation: Landchange Science, Swiss Federal Institute WSL, Zürcherstrasse 111, Birmensdorf, CH-8903, Switzerland    Simone Massaro  Affiliation: Ghent University    Beate Michalzik  Affiliation: Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Institute of Geography, Department of Soil Science    Mirco Migliavacca  Affiliation: European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy    Naoko Miura  Affiliation: Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.    Justin Moat  Affiliation: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK    Rohit Mohan  Affiliation: Department of Computer Science, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Mareike Mohr  Affiliation: Chair of Silviculture, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Martin Mokroš  Affiliation: Department of Geography, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK    Karl Montalban  Affiliation: Centre de Recherche sur la Biodiversité et l’Environnement (CRBE), Université de Toulouse, CNRS, IRD, Toulouse INP, Université Toulouse 3 - Paul Sabatier (UT3), Toulouse, France    David Montero  Affiliation: Institute for Earth System Science and Remote Sensing, Leipzig University, Talstr. 35 04103, Leipzig, Germany    Christopher Morhart  Affiliation: Chair of Forest Growth and Dendroecology, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany    Clemens Mosig  Affiliation: Institute for Earth System Science and Remote Sensing, Leipzig University, Talstr. 35 04103, Leipzig, Germany    Jana Müllerová  Affiliation: Department of Geoinformatics, Faculty of Environment, Jan Evangelista Purkyne University in Usti nad Labem, Usti nad Labem, Czech Republic    Jan-Peter Mund  Affiliation: Department Forest-Wood-Environment, Eberswalde University of Sustainable Development, Alfred-Möller-Straße 1, 16225 Eberswalde, Germany    Lena Nahrwold Affiliation: HNE Eberswalde Affiliation: GFZ Potsdam    Glenn Newnham  Affiliation: CSIRO Environment, Australia    Mihai Daniel Nita  Affiliation: Transilvania University of Brasov    Justus Nögel  Affiliation: Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL    Wolfgang Obermeier  Affiliation: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Department of Geography    Tobias Ofner-Graff  Affiliation: Institute of Forest Growth, Department of Ecosystem Management, Climate and Biodiversity, BOKU University, Vienna, Austria    Mashiro Okada  Affiliation: Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.    Jente Ottenburghs  Affiliation: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Wageningen University, The Netherlands Affiliation: Forest Ecology and Forest Management, Wageningen University, The Netherlands    Harry Owen  Affiliation: University of Cambridge    Charilaos Papathanasiou Affiliation: Department of Sustainable Agriculture, University of Patras, G. Seferi 2, GR-31132 Agrinio, Greece.    Milutin Pejovic  Affiliation: Department of Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Belgrade    Cameron Pellett  Affiliation: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences    Fabiano Rodrigues Pereira  Affiliation: ForestEyes Research Group, Department of Forest Sciences, Federal University of Paraná, 80210-170, Curitiba, Brazil    Jordan Luis Campos Modesto Pereira  Affiliation: ForestEyes Research Group, Department of Forest Sciences, Federal University of Paraná, 80210-170, Curitiba, Brazil    Richard L. Peters  Affiliation: Tree Growth and Wood Physiology, TUM School of Life Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Hans-Carl-v.-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany    Stefan Peters  Affiliation: School of Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences, College of Sciences, Adelaide University    Anže Martin Pintar  Affiliation: Slovenian Forestry Institute    Francesco Pirotti  Affiliation: CIRGEO Interdepartmental Research Center of Geomatics / TESAF Department - University of Padova - Italy    Camila Pizano  Affiliation: School of the Art Institute of Chicago    George Rohan Pottamkulam  Affiliation: University of Freiburg    Karin Potthast  Affiliation: Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Institute of Geography, Department of Soil Science    Markéta Potůčková  Affiliation: Charles University, Faculty of Science    Vasilis Poulis Affiliation: Department of Sustainable Agriculture, University of Patras, G. Seferi 2, GR-31132 Agrinio, Greece.    Sebastian Preidl  Affiliation: Institute for Forest Protection, Julius Kühn Institute (JKI), Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Erwin-Baur-Str. 27, 06484 Quedlinburg, Germany    Nicola Puletti  Affiliation: CREA - Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agraria; Council for Agricultural Research and Agricultural Economics-CREA    Stefano Puliti  Affiliation: Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Høgskoleveien 7, 1431 Ås, Norway    Eetu Puttonen  Affiliation: Department of Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry, Finnish Geospatial Research Institute (FGI), National Land Survey of Finland    Birgitta Putzenlechner  Affiliation: Competence Centre Landscape Resilience, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen    Soroor Rahmanian  Affiliation: Institute for Earth System Science and Remote Sensing, Leipzig University, Talstr. 35 04103, Leipzig, Germany Affiliation: German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstraße 4, 04103 Leipzig, Germany Affiliation: Institute of Biology, Leipzig University, Puschstraße 4, 04103 Leipzig, Germany    Anandakumar M Ramiya  Affiliation: Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology, India    Alexander Reiterer  Affiliation: University of Freiburg, Department of Sustainable Systems Engineering INATECH, Freiburg, 79110, Germany Affiliation: Fraunhofer Institute for Physical Measurement Techniques IPM, Freiburg, 79110, Germany    Stefan A. Rensing  Affiliation: Central Data Facility, University of Freiburg, Freiburg i.Br., Germany Affiliation: Faculty of Chemistry and Pharmacy, University of Freiburg    Rico Richter  Affiliation: Digital Engineering Faculty, University of Potsdam, Prof.-Dr.-Helmert-Straße 2-3, 14482 Potsdam, Germany    Carolin Rünger  Affiliation: Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Dresden University of Technology, 01069 Dresden, Germany    Christopher Russell  Affiliation: NASA Astrobiology Institute, Mountain View, California, USA    Martin Rutzinger  Affiliation: Department of Geography, University of Innsbruck    Mojdeh Safaei  Affiliation: Department of Landscape Ecology and Resources Management, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 26-32, Giessen, 35392, Germany    Ionu t , S , andric  Affiliation: Faculty of Geography, University of Bucharest    Carlos Roberto Sanquetta  Affiliation: Department of Forest Sciences, Federal University of Paraná, Brazil    Valentin Sarkleti  Affiliation: Institute of Forest Growth, Department of Ecosystem Management, Climate and Biodiversity, BOKU University, Vienna, Austria    Rebecca Del’Papa Moreira Scafutto  Affiliation: Geosciences Institute, University of Campinas, PO Box 6152, 13083-855, Campinas, Brazil    Michael Scherer-Lorenzen  Affiliation: Geobotany, Faculty of Biology, University of Freiburg, Schänzlestraße 1, Freiburg im Breisgau, 79104 Germany    Florian Schill  Affiliation: University of Applied Sciences Mainz, i3mainz - Institute for Spatial Information and Surveying Technology, Lucy-Hillebrand-Straße 2, 55128 Mainz, Germany    Zoe Schindler  Affiliation: Chair of Forest Growth and Dendroecology, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany    Paul Melchior Schliephack  Affiliation: Chair of Forest Growth and Dendroecology, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany    Ephraim Schmidt-Riese  Affiliation: Geoinformation in Environmental Planning Lab, Technische Universität Berlin, Strasse des 17. Juni 145, 10623, Berlin, Germany    Gerhard Schmied  Affiliation: Tree Growth and Wood Physiology, TUM School of Life Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Hans-Carl-v.-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany    Florian Schnabel  Affiliation: Chair of Silviculture, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany Affiliation: Future Forests Cluster of Excellence, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Nico Schumacher Affiliation: Eifel National Park    Janine Schweier  Affiliation: Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL    Thomas Seifert  Affiliation: Chair of Forest Growth and Dendroecology, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany Affiliation: Future Forests Cluster of Excellence, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Jana Seiler  Affiliation: University of Freiburg, Department of Sustainable Systems Engineering INATECH, Freiburg, 79110, Germany Affiliation: Fraunhofer Institute for Physical Measurement Techniques IPM, Freiburg, 79110, Germany    Cornelius Senf  Affiliation: Technical University of Munich, School of Life Sciences, Earth Observation for Ecosystem Management, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany    Johannes Antenor Senn  Affiliation: Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany    Graeme Shannon  Affiliation: School of Environmental and Natural Sciences, Bangor University, United Kingdom Affiliation: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research    Jonathan Sheppard  Affiliation: Chair of Forest Growth and Dendroecology, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany    Caileigh Shoot  Affiliation: Geoinformation in Environmental Planning Lab, Technische Universität Berlin, Strasse des 17. Juni 145, 10623, Berlin, Germany    Andy Smith  Affiliation: School of Environmental and Natural Sciences, Bangor University, United Kingdom    Laura N. Sotomayor  Affiliation: University of Tasmania    Max Sperlich  Affiliation: XR Future Forests Lab, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Alex Šrollerů  Affiliation: Charles University, Faculty of Science    Marion Stellmes  Affiliation: Remote Sensing and Geoinformatics, Institute of Geographical Sciences, Department of Earth Sciences, Freie Universität Berlin, 12249 Berlin, Germany    Krzysztof Stereńczak  Affiliation: Department of Geomatics, Forest Research Institute, Poland    Atticus Stovall  Affiliation: Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, University of Maryland, United States    José J. Tchamba  Affiliation: Instituto Superior de Ciências da Educação da Huíla, ISCED-Huíla, Rua Sarmento Rodrigues, Lubango, Angola, P.B. 230    Jeanne Terragno  Affiliation: Ghent University    Louise Terryn  Affiliation: Q-ForestLab, Department of Environment, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Belgium    Eric Andreas Thurm  Affiliation: Landesforstanstalt Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Department of Forest Planning / Forest Research / Information Systems, Research Unit Silviculture and Forest Growth, Zeppelinstrasse 3, 19061 Schwerin, Germany    Andreas Tockner  Affiliation: Institute of Forest Growth, Department of Ecosystem Management, Climate and Biodiversity, BOKU University, Vienna, Austria    Max Tölle  Affiliation: Leipzig University    Enrico Tomelleri  Affiliation: Free University of Bozen-Bolzano    Jesús Torralba  Affiliation: Geo-Environmental Cartography and Remote Sensing Group (CGAT), Department of Cartographic Engineering, Geodesy and Photogrammetry, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain    Francisco Torres  Affiliation: Fundación Natura    Susan E. Trumbore  Affiliation: Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany    Mudassar Umar  Affiliation: Laboratory of Geo-Information Science and Remote Sensing, Wageningen University, The Netherlands    Abhinav Valada  Affiliation: Department of Computer Science, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany    Ruben Valbuena  Affiliation: Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden    Wouter A. J. Van den Broeck  Affiliation: Ghent University    Jens van der Zee  Affiliation: Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management, Wageningen University, The Netherlands Affiliation: Biometris, Wageningen University, The Netherlands    Can Vatandaslar  Affiliation: Faculty of Forestry, Artvin Coruh University, 08100 Artvin, Turkey    Dimitra Veropoulou Affiliation: MGI, Wageningen University, The Netherlands    Grégoire Vincent  Affiliation: Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)    Vladimir Visacki  Affiliation: Institute of Lowland Forestry and Environment (ILFE), University of Novi Sad, A Cehova 13d, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia    Dirk von Suchodoletz  Affiliation: Computer Center (University of Freiburg)    Christine I. B. Wallis  Affiliation: Geoinformation in Environmental Planning Lab, Technische Universität Berlin, Strasse des 17. Juni 145, 10623, Berlin, Germany    Yunsheng Wang  Affiliation: Department of Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry, Finnish Geospatial Research Institute (FGI), National Land Survey of Finland    Kai J. Weber  Affiliation: Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research Affiliation: Leipzig University    Maximilian Weidenfeller  Affiliation: Chair of Forest Growth and Dendroecology, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany    Hannah Weiser  Affiliation: 3DGeo Research Group, Institute of Geography, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany Affiliation: Interdisciplinary Center for Scientific Computing (IWR), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany    Maciej Wielgosz  Affiliation: Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Høgskoleveien 7, 1431 Ås, Norway    Johannes Wilk  Affiliation: GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences    Jan Wolf  Affiliation: GIS & RS Group, Institute of Geography, University of Cologne, 50923, Cologne, Germany    Binbin Xiang  Affiliation: Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Høgskoleveien 7, 1431 Ås, Norway    Lin Xiong  Affiliation: University of Maryland    Wanxin Yang  Affiliation: Department of Geography, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK Affiliation: NERC National Centre for Earth Observation (NCEO)    Yixin Zhou  Affiliation: ETH Zurich    Julian Frey  Affiliation: Chair of Forest Growth and Dendroecology, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany

Abstract

From individual trees to forest stands, three-dimensional structure shapes carbon, water, and energy flows, habitat conditions, and resource availability. Yet tree and forest structural attributes remain difficult to assess consistently across space and time. Close-range LiDAR (light detection and ranging) records detailed 3D structure from branches and trees to forest plots, including trees outside forests. However, broader reuse is constrained when data, acquisition context, processing, computation, and access conditions are maintained separately. We present 3Dtrees.earth, an operational community research infrastructure that brings close-range LiDAR datasets, analysis tools, and computing resources together while linking original observations to their metadata and processing outputs. As of 23 October 2026, the platform comprised 2,760 datasets, including 2,481 publicly visible datasets. These point cloud datasets span 46 countries on all six inhabited continents and include terrestrial, mobile, and uncrewed aerial laser scanning. Users can contribute and discover datasets, run standardized processing workflows on shared computing infrastructure, inspect point clouds and model predictions in the browser, and access data and processing outputs together with citation information. Workflows combine rule-based and machine-learning methods, with tools updated as methods advance. Outputs include raster products, individual-tree and semantic segmentation, and tree- and stand-level metrics. Original point clouds and processing records are retained, enabling reprocessing with improved tools while preserving provenance. With broader coverage, curation, and validation, this shared resource could extend individual surveys into a basis for model evaluation and benchmarking, cross-site synthesis, calibration and validation of larger-scale Earth observation products, and macroecological analysis.

Keywords: LiDAR; forest structure; point clouds; research infrastructure; research data management; Galaxy Europe; Earth observation.

1 Introduction

1.1 Close-range LiDAR reveals tree and forest structure

Trees form complex three-dimensional structures in forests, savannas, agricultural landscapes, and urban areas. Forests alone cover roughly a third of the Earth’s land surface, regulate global carbon, water, and energy cycles, and sustain a large share of terrestrial biodiversity (Krieger, 2001; Groombridge and Jenkins, 2002; Pan et al., 2013; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2020; Santoro et al., 2021). Ecosystem processes in tree-dominated ecosystems are inherently three-dimensional, with structural complexity shaping habitat availability, microclimate, biodiversity, ecosystem fluxes, and resilience to climate change (Ehbrecht et al., 2021; Lines et al., 2022b; Atkins et al., 2023; Schnabel et al., 2025). At the same time, tree mortality, forest degradation, and forest management are altering ecosystem structure (IPBES, 2019; McDowell et al., 2020; Schiefer et al., 2025). Furthermore, climate-driven disturbance regimes are intensifying (Seidl et al., 2017; Mahecha et al., 2024), creating an urgent need to quantify dynamics in tree and forest structure consistently across large areas (International Tree Mortality Network, 2025). However, obtaining comparable structural observations across sites and through time remains challenging (Fassnacht et al., 2024).

Traditional field methods capture that geometry only to a limited extent. Forest inventories provide reference measurements for many forest attributes, but collecting them is labor-intensive, limiting the number of sites that can be surveyed and how frequently measurements can be repeated (Tomppo et al., 2008; Avery and Burkhart, 2015). National forest inventories use country-specific sampling designs, with differing plot sizes, sampling densities, and revisit intervals (Vidal et al., 2016). These designs support inference at broad reporting scales but provide limited resolution in terms of fine-grained spatial variation and short-term structural change (Kandler, 2009; Nesha et al., 2021). Access to exact national forest inventory plot locations is often restricted, which can complicate integration with remote sensing observations (Gessler et al., 2024; Schumacher et al., 2026). Plot locations are also often poorly georeferenced because dense canopies weaken satellite-positioning signals (Maack et al., 2016). Field assessments that rely on expert judgment rather than direct measurement can also be subject to observer bias (Innes, 1988; Bacaro et al., 2026). Therefore, field-based monitoring is limited by the range of structural metrics it can quantify and the sampling error caused by restricted spatial and temporal coverage (McDowell et al., 2020; International Tree Mortality Network, 2025).

Close-range LiDAR (light detection and ranging) fundamentally changes this measurement paradigm: rather than inferring tree structure from a limited set of plot-level measurements, it resolves tree geometry directly in three dimensions. Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS), mobile laser scanning (MLS), and uncrewed aerial laser scanning (ULS) systems detect reflected laser pulses and record up to millions of three-dimensional point coordinates per second. The resulting point clouds reconstruct the explicit three-dimensional geometry of trees and forest stands (Liang et al., 2016; Calders et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2022; Coops et al., 2025), and repeated acquisitions can document structural change over time (Sheppard et al., 2017; Gassilloud et al., 2026). Three-dimensional observations enable detailed estimates of tree dimensions and crown structure (Owen and Lines, 2024), as well as foliage density and biomass (Calders et al., 2015; Béland and Kobayashi, 2021). Close-range LiDAR therefore provides structural variables that are difficult to obtain from conventional surveys (Calders et al., 2015; Béland and Kobayashi, 2021; Puliti et al., 2024; Feigl et al., 2025). These observations complement established forest inventories rather than replace their long-term measurements and sampling frameworks (Fassnacht et al., 2024).

A growing set of methods offers opportunities to translate LiDAR data into quantitative, tree- and stand-level assessments of forest structure and function, as illustrated by a dataset in footnote 1. Separation of leaf and wood points supports estimates of leaf distribution and leaf area index (Brown et al., 2025), while instance segmentation of individual trees (Wielgosz et al., 2024; Xiang et al., 2025) supports forest inventories and the estimation of structural attributes (Puliti et al., 2023; Xiang et al., 2023; Xiang et al., 2024). On delineated instances, species recognition and biomass estimation support biodiversity monitoring and carbon accounting (Calders et al., 2015; Schindler et al., 2023; Puliti et al., 2025; Coops et al., 2025; International Tree Mortality Network, 2025). Reconstructed 3D structure informs radiative-transfer simulations (Frey et al., 2025) and the study of competition for light (Kröner et al., 2026). It also supports microclimate modeling (Schnabel et al., 2025) and the estimation of finer-grained attributes such as tree age (Puliti et al., 2026) and habitat quality (Holland et al., 2024). Within surveyed areas, these methods can enable highly detailed, spatially explicit characterization of individual trees and stands, thereby extending the range of structural attributes accessible through conventional field inventories.

These advances highlight the potential of close-range LiDAR, but their broader application depends on understanding and improving methodological transferability across biomes, forest types, and acquisition settings. This requires diverse training and evaluation datasets, making the fragmentation of existing data a practical barrier to further progress (Cherlet et al., 2026).

1.2 Fragmentation of data and tools limits reuse

Individual LiDAR surveys reveal forest structure in detail, but comparisons across sites and time require a broader set of observations. Pooling datasets across sensor types, forest types, regions, and time can support cross-site synthesis, method development, and links to larger-scale Earth observation (EO) products.

Implementing research with aggregate LiDAR data requires this data to be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) (Wilkinson et al., 2016), which requires communication of the acquisition, processing, and quality of the dataset (Schiefer et al., 2023; Fassnacht et al., 2024; Maeda et al., 2025). Currently, the path from individual LiDAR datasets to scientific reuse runs through disconnected systems: data, documentation, processing tools, computational resources, and results are commonly maintained separately. Consequently, researchers must find and move data between environments, reconstruct how they were produced, and assemble the tools needed for analysis. This fragmentation narrows the data available for developing transferable methods and synthesis studies (Kattenborn et al., 2021).

Existing initiatives and resources cover different parts of this path. General-purpose archives such as Zenodo or PANGAEA preserve and publish research data (European Organization for Nuclear Research and OpenAIRE, 2013; Felden et al., 2023); tools such as PC2RCHIVE help researchers prepare point clouds and associated metadata for archiving (Farkas and Kruse, 2024). SmartForest and ScanForest make shared code and forest point cloud datasets discoverable (SmartForest, 2026a; ScanForest, 2026); Global TLS documents plot-scale terrestrial laser scanning activity and indicates where data are available²² 2 https://www.global-tls.net, while OpenTopography provides mature infrastructure for airborne laser scanning (ALS) point cloud discovery, access, and processing (Crosby et al., 2020).

Task-specific labeled datasets support method development and evaluation: FOR-instance provides a UAV laser scanning benchmark for semantic and instance segmentation, FOR-species20K supports training and benchmarking of tree-species classifiers from single-tree point clouds, and FOR-age benchmarks individual-tree age estimation from dense laser scans (Puliti et al., 2023; Puliti et al., 2025; Puliti et al., 2026). SegmentedForests adds manually labeled ground-based point clouds for semantic segmentation of forest scenes (Laino et al., 2025). TreeScanPL10k provides annotated terrestrial laser scanning point clouds for individual-tree segmentation and species classification (Stereńczak et al., 2026). BorFIT contributes manually segmented individual trees from northern boreal forests for developing and evaluating tree-segmentation methods (Schladebach et al., 2025).

Combining these datasets and reproducing analyses still requires researchers to connect point cloud files with acquisition metadata and processing workflows. Point clouds can be distributed in various open or proprietary file formats, and information regarding how datasets were acquired, registered, georeferenced, filtered, and processed is often implicit or distributed across file metadata, README documents, and separate publications (Liang et al., 2022; Öztürk et al., 2026). For close-range LiDAR, differences in scan positions, occlusion, and point density affect how completely tree structures are captured and which structural attributes can be reliably derived (Calders et al., 2020; Gassilloud et al., 2025; Kükenbrink et al., 2025).

Reproducing the processing applied to those data poses a further barrier. Highlighting such challenges, a review within the COST Action 3DforEcoTech cataloged 24 software solutions for processing ground-based forest point clouds (Murtiyoso et al., 2024).

While this diversity reflects an active research community, differences in software environments, input requirements, dependencies, and documentation can make it difficult to combine tools, trace processing steps, and reproduce analyses. Using and combining these tools often requires specialist expertise. Furthermore, computational demands restrict access to many recent approaches (Öztürk et al., 2026). Projects such as ForestSens complement these efforts by providing cloud access to forest point cloud algorithms (SmartForest, 2026b), but running tools in the cloud alone does not connect processing runs to the broader dataset metadata and provenance needed for interpretation and reuse.

Observation networks and research platforms provide useful examples of how different parts of this process can be connected through shared infrastructure. The pioneering PhenoCam Network uses common protocols and openly shared repeat photography to support phenological research across sites; its development also illustrates the need for sustained collaboration and funding (Richardson, 2023). OpenML links datasets to tasks, implementations, and recorded results, making it easier to compare methods on common data (Bischl et al., 2025). iNaturalist connects plant and animal species observations to community identification and revision, allowing contributions to be improved through use (Campbell et al., 2023). The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) indexes species records from many distributed providers through common infrastructure for discovery, access, citation, and attribution (Robertson et al., 2014).³³ 3 https://www.gbif.org/ The platform deadtrees.earth⁴⁴ 4 https://deadtrees.earth/ provides data publication and sharing of close-range RGB data from UAVs as well as inference on forest cover and dead wood mapping (Mosig et al., 2026b). These platforms serve different purposes, but each reduces the work required to progress from submitting or finding a contribution to processing, analyzing, or improving it. The remaining challenge is to establish these connections for close-range LiDAR data.

1.3 3Dtrees.earth: Concept and goals

We present 3Dtrees.earth, an operational research platform that unifies research data management, cloud-based processing, and web-based visualization of close-range LiDAR datasets, linking uploaded data, metadata, and derived products for provenance tracking and method comparison throughout. The core data focus of 3Dtrees.earth is point clouds produced from terrestrial laser scanning (TLS), mobile laser scanning (MLS), and uncrewed aerial laser scanning (ULS) sensors, given their ability to resolve fine tree and forest structures inaccessible to larger-scale sensors. We begin by detailing the dataset life cycle in Section 2. We describe how datasets are uploaded, processed, inspected, and accessed through 3Dtrees.earth, followed by a summary of the current dataset collection. We also discuss how the platform is governed and a plan for sustainable maintenance and growth. Looking forward, Section 3 examines the scientific opportunities and limitations of this growing collection, together with the curation, validation, and coverage needed to support its use and maximize its utility for researchers, developers, and practitioners alike.

2 Platform implementation: From data and method contribution to reuse

3Dtrees.earth is a web-based application that enables researchers to manage, analyze, and share close-range LiDAR point clouds. Standardized workflows provide access to tools for analyzing tree and forest structure on publicly funded cloud computing infrastructure, allowing researchers to obtain processed point clouds and derived products without having to set up or maintain their own processing environments.

Users can discover public datasets on an interactive map, inspect and compare point clouds and model predictions in the browser, and download data together with available processing records (Figure 2). Each uploaded dataset retains its acquisition metadata, contributor information, and access settings. Derived products remain linked to the original point clouds and the processing records that describe how they were generated. Retaining the original data allows datasets to be reprocessed as methods improve or new applications emerge. The main software components and their connections are shown in Appendix B (Figure B.1).

2.1 Data contribution and discovery

After signing in, a user contributes close-range scans as one or more point cloud files in the open LAS or LAZ formats. Preprocessing to translate the raw scanning data into a point cloud must be done prior to upload, since this step usually requires specialized proprietary software provided by the sensors’ manufacturer. Here, “original point clouds” refers to the preprocessed files uploaded by contributors before processing on 3Dtrees.earth.

3Dtrees.earth organizes data into datasets, which are discovered, processed, and accessed individually. A dataset corresponds to a single LiDAR survey, covering one contiguous area with one acquisition date. A LiDAR survey may produce several files, for example, from different scanning positions or subareas, and these can be uploaded simultaneously to form one dataset sharing a single metadata record. Files from different scan positions must be co-registered before upload; 3Dtrees.earth does not currently perform this step. Contributors can additionally group related datasets, such as surveys from different sites or dates within one project, into a collection.

A dataset’s metadata record is built in two parts: 3Dtrees.earth extracts point cloud attributes, including the coordinate reference system, automatically, while the user supplies acquisition details such as sensor information and scanning pattern during upload. The record also holds authorship and funding information, and users can attach supplementary material such as related documentation. Two features reduce the effort of entering this information. First, a user can supply the digital object identifier (DOI) of an existing publication or repository record; the platform then retrieves the available descriptions, authors, Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) identifiers, and funding information from that source while preserving the link to the original work. Users can also have a DOI provisioned for their dataset (Section 2.5). Second, reusable templates can be used to carry shared metadata across a series of related datasets, reducing repeated data entry and improving consistency between uploads. Appendix A lists the metadata fields and distinguishes required, optional, and automatically extracted information.

Access is governed on a per-dataset basis according to the principle “as open as possible, as closed as necessary” (European Commission, 2016). The uploading user selects one of three access levels: Public datasets are openly discoverable, inspectable, and downloadable; View-only datasets remain discoverable and inspectable, but downloads require explicit access; and Private datasets are accessible only to authorized users.

Users can share datasets or collections with registered collaborators, granting permission to download data, edit metadata, or manage access. This enables collaboration without requiring public release to support constraints such as research status, inventory regulations, or commercial confidentiality. Additionally, a dataset’s location can be provided as approximate or even hidden instead of as precise coordinates for sensitive sites. While visibility and access management govern who can obtain a dataset, users must also select a license, with CC-BY-4.0 recommended. Licenses are packaged with dataset downloads, governing dataset usage outside the platform.

Public and view-only datasets can be discovered via the dataset catalog. The catalog combines an interactive world map with a list of all datasets. Search and sorting tools help identify relevant datasets. Selecting a dataset opens its detail page (footnote 5), which presents the metadata, any linked DOI, the location, and the available processing outputs alongside the web-based viewer, supporting the assessment of a dataset’s suitability for a user’s needs prior to download.

2.2 Processing and provenance on Galaxy Europe

A common challenge for researchers analyzing large LiDAR datasets is access to sufficient computing resources, especially for demanding methods such as deep learning. 3Dtrees.earth therefore connects contributed point clouds with reproducible processing on Galaxy Europe⁶⁶ 6 https://galaxyproject.org/eu/, a research-computing infrastructure that federates European high-performance computing and cloud centers into shared computing capacity (The Galaxy Community, 2026). Running the most demanding stages on shared infrastructure removes the need for individual high-performance hardware. Modular workflows prepare datasets for analysis, derive analytical products, and generate assets for web-based inspection. The infrastructure supports an evolving combination of state-of-the-art methods rather than a fixed sequence of algorithms.

The analytical tools in 3Dtrees.earth currently include a range of conventional geometric and rule-based methods alongside machine-learning models. Because tools installed on the Galaxy servers are running in their own execution environments, workflows can incorporate methods implemented in different programming languages, including R, Python, C++, and Julia. This approach allows communities of method developers to freely develop new tools for segmentation, species classification, or structural analysis, which the 3Dtrees.earth team can integrate after technical review and testing. Datasets already held on the platform can then benefit from reprocessing as improved or more specialized methods become available.

The current default workflow illustrates this approach (Figure 4). Following upload, the dataset’s point cloud files are submitted together, so that processing is scoped to the dataset rather than to individual files. Standardization first reconciles LAS and LAZ conventions across the files, and automated technical checks then screen them before subsequent analysis (Section 2.4). Overview images support catalog browsing. SmartTile divides the standardized point clouds into tiles, subsampling where needed, so that demanding processing steps can be run in parallel. Raster processing derives a series of raster products, including digital surface models, digital terrain models, canopy height models and a series of structural diversity metrics.

The following tools provide the current basis for tree-level analysis, which can expand with community contributions and advances in the state of the art: SegmentAnyTree (Wielgosz et al., 2024) and ForestMamba (Nguyen et al., 2026b) each predict individual tree instances, and each also returns semantic classes: tree and non-tree for SegmentAnyTree; leaf, wood, and ground for ForestMamba. RayCloudTools (Lowe and Stepanas, 2021) provides geometric processing methods, including RayExtract for tree segmentation and reconstruction of woody structure (Devereux et al., 2026). DetailView utilizes the resulting tree instances and adds species predictions within its supported species set and European scope (Puliti et al., 2025). CspStandSegmentation (Frey and Schindler, 2024) derives structural estimates from delineated trees, including height, diameter at breast height, and horizontal projected area. The reliability of these estimates depends on input quality, segmentation, and the assumptions and parameter settings of the respective method.

The processed point cloud tiles are then merged into a Cloud Optimized Point Cloud (COPC). The merged point cloud retains the available semantic, tree-instance, and species predictions, together with prediction scores where available. PotreeConverter (Schütz et al., 2020) uses this point cloud to generate files optimized for browser-based visualization.

The point cloud products and visualization files are attached to the dataset alongside raster products, vector records of single-tree attributes, and overview images. The downloadable products are bundled into a download package (Section 2.5), while the visualization files are used only by the web viewer.

Users publishing research based on 3Dtrees.earth need traceable processing records to report how results were generated and which tools and settings were used. Galaxy automatically records this information for each processing step, including the tool and its version, the parameters supplied, the inputs and outputs, and the container environment in which the step ran. These records keep results traceable to the runs that produced them, including when datasets are reprocessed using different methods or settings. A versioned workflow description⁷⁷ 7 https://3dtrees.earth/docs/methods/workflows/default documents the processing stages, tool settings, conditional steps, and expected outputs. Available dataset-specific processing records document the workflow, tool versions, and parameters used to generate the outputs and are included in the download package. Export as a complete machine-readable research object, such as Research Object Crate (RO-Crate), is planned (Soiland-Reyes et al., 2022).

2.3 Web-based visualization

Scan geometry, structural coverage, and data quality are difficult to judge from metadata alone. 3Dtrees.earth therefore provides interactive, browser-based visualization of point clouds, available model predictions, and other tool outputs, allowing researchers to assess datasets without downloading the complete point clouds or installing specialist desktop software such as CloudCompare (CloudCompare, 2026). This inspection helps identify issues in scanning or processing, such as occlusion, spatial artifacts, and implausible predictions. Comparing outputs from different methods can also reveal differences that require closer quantitative evaluation.

The Potree-based viewer (Schütz, 2016) streams the visualization files prepared during processing (Section 2.2; footnote 5). It supports rotating, zooming, and panning through the three-dimensional scene. Point clouds can be colored and filtered by RGB where available, by height, by instance and species predictions, and by other point attributes present in the original point cloud or returned by the processing workflows. Neighboring predicted instances are assigned contrasting colors to keep them visually distinct (footnote 8). Adjustable transects expose vertical structure, canopy layering, and understory. Individual trees can be isolated to inspect their properties, including species predictions and, where available, prediction scores. Any view can be captured as a shareable link.

Visual inspection also provides the basis for structured dataset audits (Section 2.4).

2.4 Quality assurance and dataset audit

Assessing a dataset’s suitability for reuse requires both technical checks and examination of the point clouds and available predictions. The automated checks that run during processing record coordinate-reference information, spatial extent, point counts, overlap between files, and point-attribute consistency. A structured dataset audit complements these checks by documenting spatial coverage, acquisition context, and limitations relevant to interpretation and reuse.

Reviewers from the 3Dtrees.earth team examine datasets in a specialized audit view of the web viewer. They describe the dataset’s acquisition and scene context, delineate usable areas and exclusions, and record occlusion, disturbance, metadata limitations, and descriptive tags. They also assess the plausibility of the available tree-instance and species predictions. These observations describe potential uses and limitations rather than assigning a single quality score. Quantitative assessment of prediction accuracy requires comparison with measurements or a defined reference standard. A second reviewer accepts a completed audit or returns it for revision, and any metadata corrections made during review remain visible in the dataset history. A common protocol and second review support consistency across assessments.

While audit records are currently internal, planned developments will make the findings available on dataset pages, support catalog filtering and dataset discovery, and include quality assessment information with downloads. A planned reporting function will also allow users to flag processing artifacts, implausible predictions, or metadata errors. The core team will review these reports and update the audit record where warranted.

The audit protocol is being developed with community partners and will evolve as the catalog grows and reuse experience accumulates. Because manual review requires time and expertise, we are exploring ways to automate parts of the assessment while maintaining reliable data-quality judgments. The current audit workflow and its status are documented on the platform⁹⁹ 9 https://3dtrees.earth/docs/methods/quality-audit.

2.5 Dataset access and published datasets

Authenticated users can download any public dataset, as well as view-only or private datasets for which they have read access. They can select the original point clouds, available prediction-enriched point clouds, or both, along with supplementary material where available. Download packages always include the dataset’s selected license, a README, a BibTeX citation, DataCite-formatted citation metadata, and available processing records in human- and machine-readable form. Files are accessed through temporary download links and can be saved as ZIP files directly from the browser or by using resumable download commands.

3Dtrees.earth enables contributors with administrative permission for the selected datasets to create citable dataset releases through FreiData, a research-data repository provided by the University of Freiburg¹⁰¹⁰ 10 https://freidata.uni-freiburg.de. A dataset release can contain an individual dataset, a collection, or a selection of datasets, together with their original point cloud files, metadata, and citation information. Contributors confirm their authority to publish the data and submit a draft for review by the core team. Acceptance triggers DOI registration and publication to FreiData, providing a persistent reference for citing and reusing the released data by the community.

2.6 Current catalog holdings and use

3Dtrees.earth opened to contributors in late 2025 and entered routine operation in early 2026. Within that first year, LiDAR datasets from many independent projects accumulated into a shared resource.

By 23 October 2026, the catalog comprised 2,760 datasets, of which 2,481 were publicly visible (2,093 public and 388 view-only) and 279 private, involving 755 listed authors. Recorded point counts for 2,395 visible datasets total approximately 413.8 billion, and recorded file sizes for 2,364 visible datasets sum to approximately 5.32 TB. The 1,412 visible datasets with a usable footprint have a summed footprint area of 14,858 ha. Visible datasets span all three close-range acquisition modalities, comprising 1,270 TLS, 883 ULS, and 328 MLS datasets across sites, regions, and forest types (Figure 6).

Archive requests provide a further measure of operational activity. By 23 October 2026, 161 users had submitted 3,300 archive requests covering 1,679 datasets.

These figures describe the catalog at the reporting date; current statistics are available on the platform¹¹¹¹ 11 https://3dtrees.earth/stats.

The mapped holdings extend across 46 countries on all six inhabited continents. Of the 2,257 mapped records assigned to a country, approximately 73.6% are in Europe, 11.7% in North America, and 9.2% in Africa, with smaller holdings in Oceania, Asia, and South America.

Several substantial collections illustrate the range of data available. TreeScanPL10k contributes 271 annotated TLS datasets from Central Europe (Stereńczak et al., 2026), while 171 TLS datasets capture woodland sites in Angola and Tanzania (Godlee, 2021). The Alfred Wegener Institute’s ULS collections cover northern boreal and tundra sites in Yakutia, Alaska, and northwestern Canada (Kruse et al., 2023; Kruse et al., 2025b; Kruse et al., 2025a; Kruse et al., 2025c). PathFinder superplots add MLS observations from European forest sites (Anon, 2026). TomoSense combines TLS, MLS, and ULS observations within one temperate-forest collection, and LiPheStream contributes an 18-month point cloud time series from boreal Finland (Tebaldini et al., 2023; Wittke et al., 2024). Together, these collections bring complementary observations together for comparisons across acquisition platforms, forest types, regions, and time.

The catalog’s coverage reflects where contributing research groups work, which sensors they use, and which field sites they can access, rather than systematic sampling across regions and ecosystems (Boakes et al., 2010; Meyer et al., 2015; Sierra et al., 2025; Nowosad et al., 2026). Assessing model performance or comparing structural properties across ecosystems and biomes requires dataset selection and stratification that account for the most frequently sampled regions, vegetation types, and acquisition methods (Cherif et al., 2025). Gaps in geographic and ecological coverage can guide targeted data collection and contributions, including efforts to locate existing datasets that have not yet been shared.

2.7 Community, governance, and sustainability

3Dtrees.earth depends on a broad, overlapping community of practitioners, method and model developers, and forest and environmental researchers (Figure 7). Practitioners contribute and manage scans, retain control over access, and receive processed, inspectable datasets with citation metadata. Method and model developers contribute tools for segmentation, species classification, or structural analysis, which can be versioned in Galaxy and applied to datasets after technical review (Section 2.2). Researchers discover public or view-only datasets together with the context needed to select, interpret, and cite them, and return attribution through dataset citation. Deeper collaboration, including co-authorship on dataset and analysis papers, can thus be arranged between researchers with shared interests.

Sustaining these exchanges requires a core team, institutional responsibility, clear governance, and long-term infrastructure support. The core team maintains the workflows, reviews contributed datasets, and operates, develops, and maintains the platform. Table 1 summarizes implemented and planned platform capabilities.

The University of Freiburg is currently responsible for operating 3Dtrees.earth. A governance board brings together research and infrastructure teams from the University of Freiburg and GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences, with broader contributor and partner representation planned. Quarterly open town-hall meetings involve the wider community as shared standards and policies develop. Further information on governance and community participation is provided on the platform’s governance page¹²¹² 12 https://3dtrees.earth/about/governance.

Sustaining open access requires protecting shared storage and processing capacity against excessive or abusive use. The platform’s terms of use¹³¹³ 13 https://3dtrees.earth/legal/terms define contributor responsibilities, acceptable behavior, and procedures for reporting violations. Account-based download allowances ensure platform infrastructure stability, while safeguards include automated checks during registration to discourage bulk account creation and circumvention of these allowances. Dataset licenses govern subsequent reuse, including machine-learning applications.

Infrastructure support currently rests on two substantial in-kind contributions. The University of Freiburg Computing Center provides durable storage for original point clouds, metadata, and processed products, while the publicly funded Galaxy Europe infrastructure provides scalable computing through a partnership.

3 Outlook

3Dtrees.earth is more than a repository of datasets and a library of methods. Because the two are held together, and because every dataset remains connected to its acquisition context, processing history, and the methods applied to it, the platform can support work that neither a data archive nor a toolbox could support alone. The same observations can be revisited as methods improve, compared across sensors and forest types, and linked to observations at much larger scales. The following subsections explore these directions, including programmatic access, curated dataset releases, model benchmarking, reference data for Earth observation, and long-term records of forest structure.

3.1 Programmatic access and curated dataset releases

The platform already supports dataset downloads and citable releases through FreiData (Section 2.5), but working with tens or hundreds of datasets requires ways to identify suitable data and automate their retrieval and processing. Planned developments address structured discovery, programmatic access, and scientific curation of dataset selections.

A planned SpatioTemporal Asset Catalog (STAC) will expose dataset and product metadata for structured queries, allowing users to assemble multi-dataset selections by scientific criteria rather than browsing dataset by dataset. Queries will cover original point clouds and available processing products, including standardized and prediction-enriched point clouds, raster products, and single-tree structural metrics. Extensions such as topo4d could describe temporal relationships and alignment information for repeated acquisitions (Wang et al., 2026).

A command-line interface (CLI) is being developed to support scripted platform operations, beginning with dataset upload. Planned extensions include download, processing, and reprocessing while respecting the access conditions of each dataset. Existing query and exchange approaches for individual-tree point clouds provide useful models for research-oriented data access (Höfle et al., 2023). Integrating spatially selective reads into these access tools would allow analysis software and machine-learning data loaders to stream selected regions from standardized or prediction-enriched point clouds without downloading the complete files.

The existing release mechanism also provides a basis for assembling citable datasets and collections around specific scientific questions. Potential features include community-built benchmark datasets for model improvement, data from scientific networks such as biodiversity experiments, and domain-specific campaigns such as disturbance events. Developing application-specific criteria for spatial resolution, geometric accuracy, and completeness would help researchers select datasets suited to their questions.

3.2 Model evaluation and curated benchmarks

Shared datasets and common evaluation procedures allow methods to be compared on the same basis (Lines et al., 2022a; Cherlet et al., 2026; Sharma et al., 2026). FOR-instance illustrates this: its manually annotated UAV laser scanning data come with fixed development and test subsets and guidelines for evaluating semantic and individual-tree segmentation methods (Puliti et al., 2023). FOR-species20K provides a complementary example for species classification: assembled collaboratively from close-range LiDAR point clouds and released with baseline results for seven models, it provides a common reference for evaluating tree-species classifiers (Puliti et al., 2025). Planned benchmark releases from 3Dtrees.earth would extend this approach to further tasks.

The platform already provides a basis for these comparisons. Its modular, versioned tools can process the same datasets under recorded conditions, with each dataset retaining its metadata and processing history (Section 2.2). SegmentAnyTree (Wielgosz et al., 2024), ForestMamba (Nguyen et al., 2026b), and RayCloudTools (Devereux et al., 2026) already run on the same datasets, and their tree-instance predictions can be downloaded, visualized, and compared side by side.

Reference labels are needed to turn these comparisons into evaluations of model performance. 3Dtrees.earth already contains annotated datasets, including FOR-instance and TreeScanPL10k (Puliti et al., 2023; Stereńczak et al., 2026). Harmonizing their label definitions and formats would provide reference data for training and evaluation. Additional annotation efforts could extend this resource to datasets that currently lack labels. However, annotating platform-hosted data in desktop tools such as CloudCompare (CloudCompare, 2026) requires users to download point clouds, edit them locally, and upload and reintegrate the resulting labels.

We therefore plan to integrate labeling tools into the platform’s web-based viewer, allowing users to annotate unlabeled point clouds, refine existing reference labels, and correct model predictions directly in the browser. Spatial clipping and selection tools would allow reviewers to merge fragments of the same tree and separate incorrectly joined trees. Promptable correction with tools such as SelectAnyTree (Nguyen et al., 2026a) would allow reviewers to refine a predicted tree using positive and negative point prompts. A complementary semi-automatic approach could cluster learned point embeddings into candidate tree instances for reviewers to merge or split. Planned user reporting would direct implausible predictions into this review process. Contributed labels would undergo review before inclusion in a benchmark.

As reviewed annotations accumulate, they would support fixed, versioned, and citable benchmark releases for defined tasks. Each release would specify the selected datasets, reviewed labels, training, validation, and test splits, evaluation metrics, baseline model predictions or workflows, and the relevant workflow and tool versions.

3.3 Reference data for Earth observation model development and validation

EO missions map forest attributes across regions and continents, with spatial and temporal coverage beyond that of close-range scanning. Whether derived from optical, radar, or spaceborne LiDAR observations, their products represent forest structure at coarser scales and require calibration and validation against finer-scale ground measurements, which remain scarce (Kattenborn et al., 2019; Kattenborn et al., 2021; Schiefer et al., 2023). Crowdsourced close-range scans resolve three-dimensional forest structure at tree and plot scales and can therefore provide reference data for the development and validation of EO models and products (Liang et al., 2022; Labrière et al., 2023).

Spatially referenced scans can be matched to airborne or spaceborne footprints when location, acquisition date, spatial extent, and scale align closely enough for the intended comparison. Datasets from 3Dtrees.earth could then support the development and evaluation of EO models and products for canopy height, structural complexity, biomass, species composition, mortality, or disturbance (Liang et al., 2022; International Tree Mortality Network, 2025; Schiefer et al., 2025; Mosig et al., 2026a). Translating LiDAR observations into EO reference layers depends on the target property: geometric variables, such as canopy height or canopy gap fraction, can be derived directly from the scans. Species, mortality, and disturbance require appropriate labels or independent observations of the attribute or event being assessed. Biomass and carbon estimates require additional information, such as wood density and, depending on the method, allometric relationships (Calders et al., 2015; Labrière et al., 2023).

Because the original scans are retained, reference layers can be recomputed as methods improve, allowing the same observations to serve EO questions posed after acquisition, including those concerning properties not yet routinely derived from close-range LiDAR (Liang et al., 2022). Planned programmatic access and curated multi-dataset releases would make purpose-built selections available at collection scale. Reference layers could also be tailored to a mission’s requirements by reprojecting and resampling them to its coordinate reference system and spatial resolution.

Because 3Dtrees.earth is crowdsourced, its coverage is uneven. Some regions are densely represented, whereas others remain sparsely covered (Section 2.6). The catalog and its map can help identify where new acquisitions would improve coverage for calibrating and validating EO products (International Tree Mortality Network, 2025; Schiefer et al., 2025). Its usefulness can grow through both methodological advances that extract more from existing scans and targeted contributions that fill spatial gaps.

Established in situ resources, including national forest inventories, could fill some of these gaps, but access restrictions and predefined sets of measured variables can limit their use as scientific questions change (Labrière et al., 2023). Complementing these resources with reusable close-range observations and community contributions could expand the reference data available for EO applications and the broader study of forest structure (Ehbrecht et al., 2021; Atkins et al., 2023).

3.4 Translating multitemporal scans to digital twins and models

Point clouds and derived products in 3Dtrees.earth already have a temporal component through their acquisition dates. However, observations of the same site are not yet necessarily geometrically or thematically consistent through time. Scans may not be spatially aligned, while derived variables, tree instances, or labels may differ because of changes in sensors, acquisition designs, or processing methods. Forests themselves also change on short to seasonal and longer timescales through wind-induced branch movement, phenology, growth, and mortality. These changes can complicate co-registration and must be distinguished from differences introduced by acquisition or processing (Weiser and Höfle, 2026). Geometrically and thematically consistent temporal records are a prerequisite for forest monitoring, growth and yield modeling, and digital twins.

For temporal collections, future 3Dtrees.earth workflows will co-register repeated scans and quantify geometric change using established 4D point cloud methods (Anders et al., 2026), while documenting thematic differences among acquisitions. Derived products will include explicit temporal information, persistent site and tree identities, and links to their source scans and processing runs. The result is a four-dimensional record combining three-dimensional structure with time. At the individual tree level, such records could track growth, crown development, and changes in other structural attributes, while at the stand level they could reveal changes in tree density, recruitment, mortality, and disturbance.

Coherent multitemporal records can support forest modeling and digital twins. Once tree-level inventory products, such as validated positions, species, height, stem diameter, and crown dimensions, can be derived from 3Dtrees.earth scans, they could provide initial conditions for forest growth and dynamics models, supporting projections of growing-stock increment. A concrete integration pathway is being developed through the Forest Digital Twin Database (Sperlich, 2026), which assigns persistent identities to individual trees and links measured and simulated forest states through time within site-specific management scenarios. These records can be analyzed and visualized in web dashboards or 3D applications. Prototype interfaces already prepare forest inventories for the SILVA growth model (Pretzsch et al., 2002) and write projected tree dimensions back to the database.

Linked to growth models in this way, multitemporal LiDAR-derived inventories could provide spatially and temporally explicit initial conditions for scenario generation, such as forest growth under climate projections following different socio-economic pathways (Egerer et al., 2025; Gomez et al., 2025). The same records, combined with environmental data and site conditions, could also support vegetation model calibration and validation. The spatial and structural detail that close-range LiDAR provides is particularly suited to questions about how tree structure shapes microclimate, competition, and biodiversity (Blanchard et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2025; Schnabel et al., 2025; Kröner et al., 2026).

Temporally and spatially coherent LiDAR inventories could also be linked to past or live measurement streams, including dendrometer records, ecosystem fluxes, and environmental variables. Aligning these observations in space and time would connect changes in tree and stand structure with physiological responses and environmental conditions. The Forest Digital Twin Database provides a potential route for storing these data alongside measured and projected forest states and making them accessible through a common interface (Sperlich, 2026).

LiDAR-derived inventories can also be translated into geometrically explicit virtual forests, providing the basis for photorealistic and immersive representations of measured or projected forest states for research, communication, and education. In an existing workflow, GrowPy uses measured or projected tree dimensions and positions to parameterize individual trees and passes them to The Grove, a procedural tree-generation engine that creates spatially positioned three-dimensional tree meshes (Sperlich and Jaksztat, 2026). These meshes can be explored in Unreal Engine (Figure 8) or web viewers, and can provide virtual forest scenes for HELIOS++ simulations, which generate synthetic, annotated LiDAR point clouds (Winiwarter et al., 2022; Schäfer et al., 2023). With suitable canopy optical properties and illumination conditions, these scenes could also support evaluation of radiative-transfer models and remote-sensing retrieval methods. The Radiation Transfer Model Intercomparison (RAMI) initiative illustrates this approach by comparing model simulations for shared three-dimensional canopy scenarios (Lanconelli et al., 2025). Throughout, the generated scenes and simulated point clouds retain links to the measurements or model projections they were built from. Figure C.1 in Appendix C summarizes this flow, from 3Dtrees.earth and associated data streams through the Forest Digital Twin Database to visualization and synthetic data.

3.5 A gateway to macroecological research and digital forest archives

As community participation in 3Dtrees.earth grows, contributions can increase the volume, diversity, and geographic coverage of harmonized, high-resolution 3D forest data. Curation and validation can improve the quality and suitability of this resource for scientific reuse. This cumulative resource can support analyses that move beyond individual sites and case studies, providing the distributed data foundation for investigating forest structure and dynamics across regional to global scales. Community engagement therefore does more than accelerate methodological development: it expands the scope of ecological questions that can be addressed.

Forests are complex three-dimensional systems whose architecture reflects evolutionary history, species interactions, competition, land use, and climate (Pan et al., 2013; Garnier et al., 2016). Yet the scarcity of comparable structural measurements across regions has constrained ecological, biogeographic, and macroecological analyses of forest variability (Ehbrecht et al., 2021; Atkins et al., 2023).

A geographically distributed and standardized collection of forest LiDAR observations can support systematic comparisons of forest structure, state, and functioning across ecosystems, biomes, and land-use gradients. By providing standardized point clouds together with acquisition metadata, 3Dtrees.earth helps researchers select suitable datasets and account for differences in acquisition methods, point density, and occlusion. Shared storage, structured metadata, and common processing workflows could support coordinated analyses across sites within research networks such as the Tree Diversity Network (TreeDivNet), the Integrated Carbon Observation System (ICOS) (Rebmann et al., 2018), and the Integrated European Long-Term Ecosystem, Critical Zone and Socio-Ecological Research infrastructure (eLTER) (Mollenhauer et al., 2018). Where observations coincide in space and time, LiDAR-derived structural records could be combined with these networks’ field measurements to investigate relationships between forest structure, biodiversity, carbon exchange, and long-term ecosystem change.

Beyond biogeographic and macroecological research, the same distributed and increasingly multitemporal collection also serves as a digital archive of forest structure. This archival role is becoming more urgent. Global forest area declined by a net 178 million hectares between 1990 and 2020 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2020), while land-cover statistics capture neither structural degradation nor the loss of ecological complexity (Grantham et al., 2020; Hansen et al., 2021). Some ecologically distinctive and old-growth forests are being altered in ways that may not be reversible for centuries (Gibson et al., 2011; Lindenmayer et al., 2012; Watson et al., 2018). Close-range LiDAR documents forest architecture, vertical complexity, and fine-scale heterogeneity, providing detailed structural records for long-term ecological research and digital heritage. Where access conditions allow, these records can also support virtual forest visits and immersive educational applications. 3Dtrees.earth can thus support standardized, high-resolution documentation of forest structure across regions and forest types.

4 Conclusion

3Dtrees.earth connects close-range LiDAR observations of trees and forests with acquisition metadata, processing methods, visualization, and data access. These connections reduce the work required to move from a contributed survey to scientific reuse. Retaining the original observations and their processing context allows datasets to be revisited as methods improve and new scientific questions arise.

Continued contributions can extend the geographic and temporal coverage of close-range LiDAR observations and support research beyond individual surveys. Realizing this potential requires sustained maintenance, community participation, and curation alongside shared infrastructure such as Galaxy Europe. By keeping observations, methods, and context connected, 3Dtrees.earth provides a basis for collaborative method development, cross-site synthesis, and long-term study of tree and forest structure.

Author contributions

J.V.-J. and K.G. contributed equally to this work. J.V.-J. led platform development, with contributions from D.Lu. K.G. led analytical workflow development and figure preparation. M.Sp. contributed Figures 8 and C.1. T.Ka. and J.Fr. contributed to scientific design, methodology and supervision. K.G. wrote the initial manuscript draft, and J.V.-J. and K.G. led its revision with substantial input from D.Lu., T.Ka. and J.Fr. The wider author team contributed datasets and collections, analytical methods, research infrastructure, data curation, and manuscript review and revision.

Acknowledgements

T.Ka., D.Lu., J.V.-J., K.G. and J.Fr. acknowledge support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy through EXC 3127 Future Forests (project no. 533786343), the Emmy Noether project PANOPS (project no. 504978936), NFDI4Earth (project no. 460036893), 3Dtrees.dat (project no. 575836471), and OpenS2Hub (project no. 593998785), as well as from the Eva Mayr-Stihl Foundation.

T.Ka., K.G., J.Sei. and A.Re. acknowledge support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) through the project LeafH2O, a UAV-mounted dual-wavelength LiDAR for leaf water content retrieval (project no. 541018379).

R.V. acknowledges support from the Circular Bio-based Europe Joint Undertaking and its members under grant agreement No. 101157488 (SingleTree). Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or CBE JU. Neither the European Union nor the CBE JU can be held responsible for them.

A.Gö. acknowledges funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG) under Project-ID 459819582 (SFB 1537). N.E. acknowledges support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) through the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize (grant no. Ei 862/29-1) and the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, funded by the DFG (grant no. FZT 118, 202548816).

K.C., W.C., W.A.J.V.d.B. and Z.C. were funded by the European Union (ERC-2021-STG, grant agreement No. 101039795). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Council Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

B.B., L.L. and J.Wi. acknowledge funding from the FORWARDS project (grant agreement no. 101084481). B.B., L.L., J.Wi., R.V., M.Hero., B.Gi. and G.D.S. acknowledge funding from the NextGenCarbon project (grant agreement no. 101184989).

Z.S. and C.Mor. acknowledge the HUMAX project, which is supported by funds of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Regional Identity (BMLEH) based on a decision of the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany via the Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR) under the Climate protection measure Humus, grant number 2224HA005.

F.P. and E.K. acknowledge funding from Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Padova e Rovigo (CARIPARO), which supported close-range sensing data acquisition in San Vito di Cadore (Dolomites). E.R.L., H.O. and S.W.D.G. were funded by a UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship awarded to E.R.L. (MR/T019832/1 and MR/Y033981/1).

Datasets produced by M.Do., A.G.-S., T.Kl. and M.Sa. originated from projects funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation; project number KL 2265/10-1), the Hessischer Biodiversitätsforschungsfonds of the Hessian Agency for Nature Conservation, Environment and Geology (project numbers Z1–15 c 02.01 and Z1–15 c 02.03), and the Hessian Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts of the Federal State of Hesse, Germany (grant ID 408/05.017 - (0003) f)). M.Do. and R.Be. acknowledge funding from INTERREG Deutschland-Nederland (project number 143081) for the development of a ULS system.

J.A.G. acknowledges funding from the European Union (ERC, ADAPTA, 101231095), the Natural Environment Research Council (NE/T011084/1 and NE/Z504191/1), the Royal Society (RG\R1\251370), and the Leverhulme Trust (RPG-2024-342).

S.Kr. acknowledges funding for instruments from the Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kultur (grant/award no. F221-08-AWI/001/002) and funding for point cloud processing to the publication stage from the German Research Foundation (DFG; grant/award no. 563037533, Assessing stability of topographic impacts on northern boreal forest carbon allocation across the Tundra-Taiga Ecotone amid climate crisis, BToBE).

We sincerely thank Nishiawakura Village, Okayama, Japan, Hyakumori Inc., Nishiawakura Village, Okayama, Japan, and Fuji Iyashinomori Woodland Study Center, The University of Tokyo, Yamanashi, Japan, for kindly providing access to forest sites used for data collection in this study.

A.Gr., J.R.H., M.P.E. and G.Sh. acknowledge funding from the Natural Environment Research Council through the Envision Doctoral Training Partnership (NE/L002604/1). A.Gr. and G.Sh. also acknowledge funding from the Wales Biodiversity Partnership through the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Evidence and Research Needs (BEERN) Programme.

A.M.P. acknowledges support from the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (ARIS) through the research programme P4-0107 (Forest Biology, Ecology and Technology) and the infrastructure programme I0-0012 (Infrastructural Programme of the Slovenian Forestry Institute).

UAS data collection for Pietrari, Romania, was supported by the LEAD-Landslide project (PN-IV-PCB-RO-MD-2024-0375; contract 40PCBROMD/01.09.2025), funded through the Romanian National Plan for Research, Development and Innovation (PNCDI IV) and administered by the Executive Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation Funding (UEFISCDI). UAS data collection for Iron Gate Natural Park received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 101181408 (BioClima: Improving Monitoring for Better Integrated Climate and Biodiversity Approaches, Using Environmental and Earth Observations).

Datasets collected at Wakehurst, Kew, UK, are part of the Nature Unlocked programme at Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, funded under the Nature Returns programme through the UK government’s Shared Outcomes Fund, funded by HM Treasury and co-sponsored by DEFRA and DESNZ. Nature Returns is delivered in partnership with Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission, the University of Sussex and local partners.

Datasets produced by C.Rü. and A.El. were acquired with a CHCNav RS10 handheld laser scanner purchased within the project “Cross-border forest monitoring in the Bohemian Switzerland/Saxon Switzerland National Park” (TransForMon, project no. 100736674), funded by the Interreg Saxony–Czech Republic 2021–2027 programme and co-funded by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

E.P., M.Ca. and Y.W. acknowledge support for the collection and processing of the LiPhe dataset at the Finnish Geospatial Research Institute of the National Land Survey of Finland (NLS-FGI) from the Research Council of Finland through ForestCycles (grant no. 334060), LS-HYDRO (grant no. 356137), and HPC-Carbon (grant nos. 359203 and 359204), and from the European Union’s Horizon programme through TRANSFORMIT (grant no. 101135263).

P.M.E. and W.O. acknowledge funding through the LabForest project from the Bundesministerium für Forschung, Technologie und Raumfahrt (BMFTR; grant no. 033L307A).

T.A.R. acknowledges funding from ANID FONDECYT Iniciación Grant No. 11250090.

D.A. acknowledges funding from the AUDI Environmental Foundation through the project “Spatial-temporal growth reaction of oaks to growing and site conditions” (No. 5104146).

K.Krá. and M.Kr. acknowledge funding from the Institutional Support of LRI (IP-00027073).

Datasets provided by R.J., C.Sh. and C.I.B.W. originate from the project KI-Recover, funded by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Climate Action, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMUKN, grant number 67KIA4059A).

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Data availability

Datasets are accessible through https://3dtrees.earth under their individual access conditions and licenses. Public datasets can be downloaded by registered users; downloads of view-only and private datasets require permission. Dataset records provide contributor attribution and links to existing source publications or repository records where available.

Code availability

The application repository is not publicly available because it contains non-public information shared among contributors and internal operational material requiring confidentiality. Publicly available processing tools and workflows are cited separately.

Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the manuscript preparation process

During the preparation of this work, the authors used OpenAI tools (ChatGPT and Codex) and Claude (Anthropic) to assist with drafting and revising the manuscript, improving its language and structure, checking consistency, and writing and debugging code for the platform, analyses, and figure preparation. Generative AI was also used to create selected illustrative elements in Figure 2; these are schematic illustrations, not measured data or analytical results. The authors reviewed and edited the outputs as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the published article.

References

• Anders et al. (2026) K. Anders, D. Kempf, W. Albert, P. Andriushchenko, X. Huang, D. Hulskemper, T. Isensee, D. Kapitan, R. Tabernig, H. Weiser, L. Winiwarter, V. Zahs, and B. Höfle py4dgeo: open-source scientific software for topographic change analysis in 3D/4D geographic point clouds. SoftwareX 34, pp. 102670. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §3.4.
• Anon (2026) Anon Pathfinder superplots. Zenodo. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.6.
• Atkins et al. (2023) J. W. Atkins, P. Bhatt, L. Carrasco, E. Francis, J. E. Garabedian, C. R. Hakkenberg, B. S. Hardiman, J. Jung, A. Koirala, E. A. LaRue, S. Oh, G. Shao, G. Shao, H. H. Shugart, A. Spiers, A. E. L. Stovall, T. D. Surasinghe, X. Tai, L. Zhai, T. Zhang, and K. Krause Integrating forest structural diversity measurement into ecological research. Ecosphere 14 (9), pp. e4633. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §3.3, §3.5.
• Avery and Burkhart (2015) T. E. Avery and H. E. Burkhart Forest Measurements: Fifth Edition. Waveland Press. External Links: ISBN 978-1-4786-2974-0 Cited by: §1.1.
• Bacaro et al. (2026) G. Bacaro, E. Tordoni, S. Maccherini, M. Castello, and A. Chiarucci Observer-expertise bias in multiscale forest vegetation surveys: effects on species detection, richness and composition across spatial grains and forest contexts. Plant Diversity. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Béland and Kobayashi (2021) M. Béland and H. Kobayashi Mapping forest leaf area density from multiview terrestrial lidar. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 12 (4), pp. 619–633. External Links: ISSN 2041-210X, Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Bischl et al. (2025) B. Bischl, G. Casalicchio, T. Das, M. Feurer, S. Fischer, P. Gijsbers, S. Mukherjee, A. C. Müller, L. Németh, L. Oala, L. Purucker, S. Ravi, J. N. van Rijn, P. Singh, J. Vanschoren, J. van der Velde, and M. Wever OpenML: insights from 10 years and more than a thousand papers. Patterns 6 (7), pp. 101317. External Links: Document, ISSN 2666-3899 Cited by: §1.2.
• Blanchard et al. (2023) G. Blanchard, N. Barbier, G. Vieilledent, T. Ibanez, V. Hequet, S. McCoy, and P. Birnbaum UAV-lidar reveals that canopy structure mediates the influence of edge effects on forest diversity, function and microclimate. Journal of Ecology 111 (7), pp. 1411–1427. External Links: Document Cited by: §3.4.
• Boakes et al. (2010) E. H. Boakes, P. J. K. McGowan, R. A. Fuller, D. Chang-qing, N. E. Clark, K. O’Connor, and G. M. Mace Distorted views of biodiversity: spatial and temporal bias in species occurrence data. PLoS Biology 8 (6), pp. e1000385. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.6.
• Brown et al. (2025) L. A. Brown, I. Kadhim, and F. M. Danson Leaf-wood classification of terrestrial laser scanning data with co-registered near-infrared photography. 16 (7), pp. 1425–1436. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Calders et al. (2020) K. Calders, J. Adams, J. Armston, H. Bartholomeus, S. Bauwens, L. P. Bentley, J. Chave, F. M. Danson, M. Demol, M. Disney, R. Gaulton, S. M. Krishna Moorthy, S. R. Levick, N. Saarinen, C. Schaaf, A. Stovall, L. Terryn, P. Wilkes, and H. Verbeeck Terrestrial laser scanning in forest ecology: expanding the horizon. Remote Sensing of Environment 251, pp. 112102. External Links: Document, Link, ISSN 0034-4257 Cited by: §1.1, §1.2.
• Calders et al. (2015) K. Calders, G. Newnham, A. Burt, S. Murphy, P. Raumonen, M. Herold, D. Culvenor, V. Avitabile, M. Disney, J. Armston, and M. Kaasalainen Nondestructive estimates of above-ground biomass using terrestrial laser scanning. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 6 (2), pp. 198–208. External Links: ISSN 2041-210X, Document Cited by: §1.1, §1.1, §3.3.
• Campbell et al. (2023) C. J. Campbell, V. Barve, M. W. Belitz, J. R. Doby, E. White, C. Seltzer, G. Di Cecco, A. H. Hurlbert, and R. Guralnick Identifying the identifiers: how iNaturalist facilitates collaborative, research-relevant data generation and why it matters for biodiversity science. BioScience 73 (7), pp. 533–541. External Links: Document, ISSN 1525-3244 Cited by: §1.2.
• Cherif et al. (2025) E. Cherif, A. Ouaknine, L. Brown, P. Dao, K. Kovach, B. Lu, D. Mederer, H. Feilhauer, T. Kattenborn, and D. Rolnick GreenHyperSpectra: a multi-source hyperspectral dataset for global vegetation trait prediction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 38. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.6.
• Cherlet et al. (2026) W. Cherlet, K. Dayal, S. Chen, Z. Cooper, M. Disney, A. Hanzl, S. Levick, J. Nightingale, N. Origo, C. Senf, L. Soenens, L. Terryn, W. A.J. Van den Broeck, and K. Calders Benchmarking tree instance segmentation of terrestrial laser scanning point clouds. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 231, pp. 230–247. External Links: ISSN 0924-2716, Document, Link Cited by: §1.1, §3.2.
• CloudCompare (2026) CloudCompare CloudCompare [gpl software]. Note: Open-source 3D point cloud and mesh processing software External Links: Link Cited by: §2.3, §3.2.
• Coops et al. (2025) N. C. Coops, L. A.K. Irwin, H. S. Seely, and S. J. Hardy Advances in Laser Scanning to Assess Carbon in Forests: From Ground-Based to Space-Based Sensors. Current Forestry Reports 11 (1), pp. 11. External Links: ISSN 2198-6436, Document Cited by: §1.1, §1.1.
• Crosby et al. (2020) C. J. Crosby, J. R. Arrowsmith, and V. Nandigam Zero to a trillion: advancing earth surface process studies with open access to high-resolution topography. In Remote Sensing of Geomorphology, Developments in Earth Surface Processes, Vol. 23, pp. 317–338. External Links: Document, ISBN 978-0-444-64177-9 Cited by: §1.2.
• Devereux et al. (2026) T. Devereux, T. Lowe, J. Rivory, R. Bohn Reckziegel, K. Calders, R. R. Aryal, G. Eaton, Z. Cooper, S. Levick, S. Phinn, and W. Woodgate RayExtract: A fast, scalable method for tree volume reconstruction from terrestrial laser scanning. Remote Sensing of Environment 334, pp. 115162. External Links: ISSN 0034-4257, Document Cited by: Figure 1, §2.2, §3.2.
• Egerer et al. (2025) S. Egerer, D. M. Lawrence, P. J. Lawrence, A. Argles, V. Arora, A. L. Barbu, I. N. Harman, P. A. Miller, T. Raddatz, N. Vuichard, D. Wårlind, T. Ziehn, and J. Pongratz Forestation in cmip6: wide model spread in tree cover and land carbon uptake. Environmental Research Letters 20 (5), pp. 054033. External Links: Document Cited by: §3.4.
• Ehbrecht et al. (2021) M. Ehbrecht, D. Seidel, P. Annighöfer, H. Kreft, M. Köhler, D. C. Zemp, K. Puettmann, R. Nilus, F. Babweteera, K. Willim, M. Stiers, D. Soto, H. J. Boehmer, N. Fisichelli, M. Burnett, G. Juday, S. L. Stephens, and C. Ammer Global patterns and climatic controls of forest structural complexity. Nature communications 12 (1), pp. 519. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §3.3, §3.5.
• European Commission (2016) European Commission H2020 Programme: Guidelines on FAIR Data Management in Horizon 2020. Technical report Technical Report Version 3.0, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission. External Links: Link Cited by: §2.1.
• European Organization for Nuclear Research and OpenAIRE (2013) European Organization for Nuclear Research and OpenAIRE Zenodo. CERN. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §1.2.
• Farkas and Kruse (2024) StefanKruse/PC2RCHIVE: PC2RCHIVE: a FAIR and easy point cloud archiving GUI External Links: Document Cited by: §1.2.
• Fassnacht et al. (2024) F. E. Fassnacht, J. C. White, M. A. Wulder, and E. Næsset Remote sensing in forestry: current challenges, considerations and directions. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research 97 (1), pp. 11–37. External Links: ISSN 0015-752X, Document Cited by: §1.1, §1.1, §1.2.
• Feigl et al. (2025) J. Feigl, J. Frey, T. Seifert, and B. Koch Close-Range Remote Sensing of Forest Structure for Biodiversity Assessments: A Systematic Literature Review. Current Forestry Reports 11 (1), pp. 18. External Links: ISSN 2198-6436, Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Felden et al. (2023) J. Felden, L. Möller, U. Schindler, R. Huber, S. Schumacher, R. Koppe, M. Diepenbroek, and F. O. Glöckner PANGAEA: data publisher for earth & environmental science. Scientific Data 10 (1), pp. 347. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.2.
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2020) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Global forest resources assessment 2020: main report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. External Links: Document, Link, ISBN 978-92-5-132974-0 Cited by: §1.1, §3.5.
• Frey et al. (2025) J. Frey, Z. Schindler, P. McClatchy, C. Morhart, E. Larysch, and T. Seifert The 3D reconstruction of wood and leaves from terrestrial laser scanning – a case study on PAR measurements below a solitary Malus domestica tree. Silva Fennica 59 (1). External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Frey and Schindler (2024) J. Frey and Z. Schindler JulFrey/CspStandSegmentation: Single tree segmentation from terestrial LiDAR forest scans. Note: Zenodo External Links: Document Cited by: §2.2.
• Garnier et al. (2016) E. Garnier, M. Navas, and K. Grigulis Plant functional diversity: organism traits, community structure, and ecosystem properties. Oxford University Press. External Links: Document Cited by: §3.5.
• Gassilloud et al. (2025) M. Gassilloud, B. Koch, and A. Göritz Occlusion mapping reveals the impact of flight and sensing parameters on vertical forest structure exploration with cost-effective UAV based laser scanning. 139. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.2.
• Gassilloud et al. (2026) M. Gassilloud, B. Koch, and A. Göritz Tracking 3D forest density dynamics in a mixed temperate forest using occlusion-aware voxel transmittance and consistent multi-temporal UAV-LiDAR. Note: bioRxivPreprint External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Gessler et al. (2024) A. Gessler, M. Schaub, A. Bose, V. Trotsiuk, R. Valbuena, G. Chirici, and N. Buchmann Finding the balance between open access to forest data while safeguarding the integrity of National Forest Inventory-derived information. New Phytologist 242 (2), pp. 344–346. External Links: ISSN 1469-8137, Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Gibson et al. (2011) L. Gibson, T. M. Lee, L. P. Koh, B. W. Brook, T. A. Gardner, J. Barlow, C. A. Peres, C. J. A. Bradshaw, W. F. Laurance, T. E. Lovejoy, and N. S. Sodhi Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478 (7369), pp. 378–381. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §3.5.
• Godlee (2021) J. L. Godlee Terrestrial LiDAR of southern african woodland vegetation, Bicuar National Park (Angola), Mtarure Forest Reserve (Tanzania), 2019–2020. University of Edinburgh. School of GeoSciences. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.6.
• Gomez et al. (2025) J. L. Gomez, R. J. Allen, L. W. Horowitz, S. T. Turnock, R. A. Fisher, O. E. Clifton, B. K. Mignone, E. Shevliakova, and S. Malyshev Climate effects of a future net forestation scenario in cmip6 models. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science 8 (1), pp. 297. External Links: Document Cited by: §3.4.
• Grantham et al. (2020) H. S. Grantham, A. Duncan, T. D. Evans, K. R. Jones, H. L. Beyer, R. Schuster, J. Walston, J. C. Ray, J. G. Robinson, M. Callow, T. Clements, H. M. Costa, A. DeGemmis, P. R. Elsen, J. Ervin, P. Franco, E. Goldman, S. Goetz, A. Hansen, E. Hofsvang, P. Jantz, S. Jupiter, A. Kang, P. Langhammer, W. F. Laurance, S. Lieberman, M. Linkie, Y. Malhi, S. Maxwell, M. Mendez, R. Mittermeier, N. J. Murray, H. Possingham, J. Radachowsky, S. Saatchi, C. Samper, J. Silverman, A. Shapiro, B. Strassburg, T. Stevens, E. Stokes, R. Taylor, T. Tear, R. Tizard, O. Venter, P. Visconti, S. Wang, and J. E. M. Watson Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40% of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity. Nature Communications 11 (1), pp. 5978. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §3.5.
• Groombridge and Jenkins (2002) B. Groombridge and M. Jenkins World Atlas of Biodiversity: Earth’s Living Resources in the 21st Century. University of California Press. External Links: ISBN 978-0-520-23668-4 Cited by: §1.1.
• Hansen et al. (2021) A. J. Hansen, B. P. Noble, J. Veneros, A. East, S. J. Goetz, C. Supples, J. E. M. Watson, P. A. Jantz, R. Pillay, W. Jetz, S. Ferrier, H. S. Grantham, T. D. Evans, J. Ervin, O. Venter, and A. L. S. Virnig Toward monitoring forest ecosystem integrity within the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Conservation Letters 14 (4), pp. e12822. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §3.5.
• Höfle et al. (2023) Pytreedb: library for point clouds of tree vegetation objects External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §3.1.
• Holland et al. (2024) A. Holland, P. Gibbons, J. Thompson, and S. Roudavski Terrestrial lidar reveals new information about habitats provided by large old trees. Biological Conservation 292, pp. 110507. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Innes (1988) J. L. Innes Forest health surveys: problems in assessing observer objectivity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 18 (5), pp. 560–565. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1.
• International Tree Mortality Network (2025) International Tree Mortality Network Towards a global understanding of tree mortality. New Phytologist 245 (6), pp. 2377–2392. External Links: ISSN 1469-8137, Document Cited by: §1.1, §1.1, §1.1, §3.3, §3.3.
• IPBES (2019) IPBES Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Technical report Zenodo. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Kandler (2009) G. Kandler The design of the second German national forest inventory. In Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Forest Inventory and Analysis Symposium, R. E. McRoberts, G. A. Reams, P. C. Van Deusen, and W. H. McWilliams (Eds.), General Technical Report, pp. 19–24. External Links: Link Cited by: §1.1.
• Kattenborn et al. (2021) T. Kattenborn, J. Leitloff, F. Schiefer, and S. Hinz Review on Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) in vegetation remote sensing. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 173, pp. 24–49. External Links: ISSN 0924-2716, Document Cited by: §1.2, §3.3.
• Kattenborn et al. (2019) T. Kattenborn, J. Lopatin, M. Förster, A. C. Braun, and F. E. Fassnacht UAV data as alternative to field sampling to map woody invasive species based on combined sentinel-1 and sentinel-2 data. Remote sensing of environment 227, pp. 61–73. External Links: Document Cited by: §3.3.
• Krieger (2001) D. J. Krieger Economic Value of Forest Ecosystem Services: A Review. The Wilderness Society. External Links: Link Cited by: §1.1.
• Kröner et al. (2026) K. Kröner, D. F. Stangler, E. Larysch, S. Haberstroh, P. M. Schliephack, J. Braun-Wimmer, T. Seifert, and J. Frey Disentangling competition for light from remaining competition aspects in european beech forests. Forest Ecology and Management 601, pp. 123356. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §3.4.
• Kruse et al. (2025a) S. Kruse, L. Enguehard, G. Juday, P. Santosh, A. Badola, J. Broers, L. Farkas, J. Schladebach, K. Hao, R. Jackisch, V. Döpper, and B. Heim Point clouds with ground point classification and individual tree segmentation of 28 northern boreal forest and tundra sites from UAV-based lidar surveys in western and central parts of Alaska in 2024. PANGAEA. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.6.
• Kruse et al. (2025b) S. Kruse, L. Enguehard, G. Juday, P. Santosh, A. Badola, J. Broers, L. Farkas, J. Schladebach, K. Hao, R. Jackisch, V. Döpper, and B. Heim Point clouds with ground point classification and individual tree segmentation of 47 northern boreal forest and tundra sites from UAV-based lidar surveys in the eastern part of Alaska in 2023. PANGAEA. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.6.
• Kruse et al. (2025c) S. Kruse, J. Gloy, L. Farkas, J. Schladebach, K. Hao, V. Döpper, and B. Heim Point clouds with ground point classification and individual tree segmentation of 25 northern boreal forest and tundra sites from UAV-based lidar surveys in northwestern Canada in 2022. PANGAEA. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.6.
• Kruse et al. (2023) S. Kruse, R. Jackisch, B. Heim, J. Gloy, U. Herzschuh, A. Kolmogorov, E. S. Zakharov, L. A. Pestryakova, M. Förster, and B. Kleinschmit Point clouds and high-level data products of 21 forest successional plots from UAV-based lidar survey in central and eastern Yakutia, Siberia. PANGAEA. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.6.
• Kükenbrink et al. (2025) D. Kükenbrink, M. Gassilloud, B. Brede, A. Bornand, K. Calders, W. Cherlet, M. Eichhorn, J. Frey, C. Gretler, B. Höfle, T. Kattenborn, L. Klinger, M. Mokros, T. Pitkänen, N. Saarinen, L. Terryn, H. Weiser, and A. Göritz Insights from the unseen - occlusion in forest laser scanning. Note: EarthArXivPreprint External Links: Document Cited by: §1.2.
• Labrière et al. (2023) N. Labrière, S. J. Davies, M. I. Disney, L. I. Duncanson, M. Herold, S. L. Lewis, O. L. Phillips, S. Quegan, S. S. Saatchi, D. G. Schepaschenko, K. Scipal, P. Sist, and J. Chave Toward a forest biomass reference measurement system for remote sensing applications. 29 (3), pp. 827–840. External Links: Document Cited by: §3.3, §3.3, §3.3.
• Laino et al. (2025) D. Laino, C. Cabo, C. Ordóñez, R. Bolanos, R. Janvier, F. Giulioni, M. Herrmann, A. Hudak, R. Parsons, and C. Santin SegmentedForests: a labelled dataset of terrestrial LiDAR point clouds for semantic segmentation of forests. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research, pp. cpaf062. External Links: ISSN 0015-752X, Document Cited by: §1.2.
• Lanconelli et al. (2025) C. Lanconelli, N. Gobron, M. Robustelli, J. S. Adams, K. Calders, M. Disney, J. Gastellu-Etchegorry, A. Goodenough, Y. Govaerts, R. J. Hogan, H. Huang, H. Kobayashi, A. Kuusk, V. Leroy, N. Origo, J. Qi, S. Schunke, M. van Leeuwen, Y. Wang, D. Xie, Y. Zeng, and F. Zhao The fifth phase of the radiation transfer model intercomparison exercise (RAMI-V): experiment description and results on actual canopy scenarios. Journal of Remote Sensing 5. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §3.4.
• Liang et al. (2016) X. Liang, V. Kankare, J. Hyyppä, Y. Wang, A. Kukko, H. Haggrén, X. Yu, H. Kaartinen, A. Jaakkola, F. Guan, M. Holopainen, and M. Vastaranta Terrestrial laser scanning in forest inventories. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 115, pp. 63–77. External Links: ISSN 0924-2716, Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Liang et al. (2022) X. Liang, A. Kukko, I. Balenović, N. Saarinen, S. Junttila, V. Kankare, M. Holopainen, M. Mokroš, P. Surový, H. Kaartinen, L. Jurjević, E. Honkavaara, R. Näsi, J. Liu, M. Hollaus, J. Tian, X. Yu, J. Pan, S. Cai, J. Virtanen, Y. Wang, and J. Hyyppä Close-Range Remote Sensing of Forests: The state of the art, challenges, and opportunities for systems and data acquisitions. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine 10 (3), pp. 32–71. External Links: ISSN 2168-6831, Document Cited by: §1.1, §1.2, §3.3, §3.3, §3.3.
• Lindenmayer et al. (2012) D. B. Lindenmayer, W. F. Laurance, and J. F. Franklin Global decline in large old trees. Science 338 (6112), pp. 1305–1306. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §3.5.
• Lines et al. (2022a) E. R. Lines, M. Allen, C. Cabo, K. Calders, A. Debus, S. W. D. Grieve, M. Miltiadou, A. Noach, H. J. F. Owen, and S. Puliti AI applications in forest monitoring need remote sensing benchmark datasets. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), pp. 4528–4533. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §3.2.
• Lines et al. (2022b) E. R. Lines, F. J. Fischer, H. J. F. Owen, and T. Jucker The shape of trees: Reimagining forest ecology in three dimensions with remote sensing. Journal of Ecology 110 (8), pp. 1730–1745. External Links: ISSN 1365-2745, Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Lowe and Stepanas (2021) T. Lowe and K. Stepanas RayCloudTools: a concise interface for analysis and manipulation of ray clouds. IEEE Access 9, pp. 79712–79724. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.2.
• Maack et al. (2016) J. Maack, M. Lingenfelder, H. Weinacker, and B. Koch Modelling the standing timber volume of Baden-Württemberg—A large-scale approach using a fusion of Landsat, airborne LiDAR and National Forest Inventory data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 49, pp. 107–116. External Links: ISSN 1569-8432, Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Maeda et al. (2025) E. E. Maeda, B. Brede, K. Calders, M. Disney, M. Herold, E. R. Lines, M. H. Nunes, P. Raumonen, M. Rautiainen, N. Saarinen, I. Starck, Y. Su, J. Terschanski, and L. Terryn Expanding forest research with terrestrial LiDAR technology. Nature Communications 16 (1), pp. 8853. External Links: ISSN 2041-1723, Document Cited by: §1.2.
• Mahecha et al. (2024) M. D. Mahecha, A. Bastos, F. J. Bohn, N. Eisenhauer, H. Feilhauer, T. Hickler, H. Kalesse-Los, M. Migliavacca, F. E. L. Otto, J. Peng, S. Sippel, I. Tegen, A. Weigelt, M. Wendisch, C. Wirth, D. Al-Halbouni, H. Deneke, D. Doktor, S. Dunker, G. Duveiller, A. Ehrlich, A. Foth, A. García-García, C. A. Guerra, C. Guimarães-Steinicke, H. Hartmann, S. Henning, H. Herrmann, P. Hu, C. Ji, T. Kattenborn, N. Kolleck, M. Kretschmer, I. Kühn, M. L. Luttkus, M. Maahn, M. Mönks, K. Mora, M. Pöhlker, M. Reichstein, N. Rüger, B. Sánchez-Parra, M. Schäfer, F. Stratmann, M. Tesche, B. Wehner, S. Wieneke, A. J. Winkler, S. Wolf, S. Zaehle, J. Zscheischler, and J. Quaas Biodiversity and Climate Extremes: Known Interactions and Research Gaps. Earth’s Future 12 (6), pp. e2023EF003963. External Links: ISSN 2328-4277, Document Cited by: §1.1.
• McDowell et al. (2020) N. G. McDowell, C. D. Allen, K. Anderson-Teixeira, B. H. Aukema, B. Bond-Lamberty, L. Chini, J. S. Clark, M. Dietze, C. Grossiord, A. Hanbury-Brown, G. C. Hurtt, R. B. Jackson, D. J. Johnson, L. Kueppers, J. W. Lichstein, K. Ogle, B. Poulter, T. A. M. Pugh, R. Seidl, M. G. Turner, M. Uriarte, A. P. Walker, and C. Xu Pervasive shifts in forest dynamics in a changing world. Science 368 (6494), pp. eaaz9463. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §1.1.
• Meyer et al. (2015) C. Meyer, H. Kreft, R. Guralnick, and W. Jetz Global priorities for an effective information basis of biodiversity distributions. Nature Communications 6, pp. 8221. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.6.
• Mollenhauer et al. (2018) H. Mollenhauer, M. Kasner, P. Haase, J. Peterseil, C. Wohner, M. Frenzel, M. Mirtl, R. Schima, J. Bumberger, and S. Zacharias Long-term environmental monitoring infrastructures in Europe: observations, measurements, scales, and socio-ecological representativeness. 624, pp. 968–978. External Links: Document Cited by: §3.5.
• Mosig et al. (2026a) C. Mosig, T. Kattenborn, D. Montero Loaiza, J. Vajna-Jehle, J. Brandt, N. Jacobs, S. Khanal, E. Xing, M. Schwartz, H. C. Muller-Landau, M. Beloiu, A. Bozzini, Y. Cheng, K. Ganz, B. Grüning, H. Hartmann, J. Hempel, S. Horion, S. Junttila, K. Korznikov, G. Kraemer, M. Mönks, D. Nardi, P. Neumeier, J. Schmid, S. Soltani, M. Therese-Schmehl, J. Veitch-Michaelis, and M. Mahecha Sub-pixel mapping of disturbance and tree mortality dynamics from sentinel-2 time series around the globe. EarthArXiv. Note: Preprint External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §3.3.
• Mosig et al. (2026b) C. Mosig, J. Vajna-Jehle, M. D. Mahecha, Y. Cheng, H. Hartmann, D. Montero, S. Junttila, S. Horion, M. B. Schwenke, M. J. Koontz, K. N. A. Maulud, S. Adu-Bredu, D. Al-Halbouni, M. Ali, M. Allen, J. Altman, L. Amorós, C. Angiolini, R. Astrup, H. Awada, C. Barrasso, H. Bartholomeus, P. S. A. Beck, A. Bozzini, J. Braun-Wimmer, B. Brede, F. M. Breunig, S. Brugnaro, A. Buras, V. Burchard-Levine, J. J. Camarero, A. Candotti, L. Capuder, E. Carrieri, M. Centritto, G. Chirici, M. Cloutier, D. Conciani, K. Cushman, J. W. Dalling, P. D. Dao, J. Dempewolf, M. Denter, M. Dogotari, R. Díaz-Delgado, S. Ecke, J. Eichel, A. Eltner, A. Fabbri, M. Fabi, F. Fassnacht, M. P. Ferreira, F. J. Fischer, J. Frey, A. Frick, J. Fuentes, S. Ganz, M. Garbarino, M. García, M. Gassilloud, A. Gazol, G. Gea-Izquierdo, K. Gerberding, M. Ghasemi, F. Giannetti, J. Gillan, R. Gonzalez, C. Gosper, T. Greene, K. Greinwald, S. Grieve, A. Große-Stoltenberg, J. A. Gutierrez, A. Göritz, P. Hajek, D. Hedding, J. Hempel, S. Heremans, M. Hernández, M. Heurich, E. Honkavaara, B. Höfle, R. Jackisch, T. Jucker, J. M. Kalwij, S. Kepfer-Rojas, P. Khatri-Chhetri, T. Kleinebecker, H. Klemmt, T. Klouček, N. Koivumäki, N. Kolagani, J. Komárek, K. Korznikov, B. Kraszewski, S. Kruse, R. Krüger, H. Kuechly, I. H. Y. Kwong, E. Laliberté, L. Langan, H. Latifi, C. Leal-Medina, J. R. K. Lehmann, L. Li, E. Lines, M. Lisiewicz, J. Lopatin, A. Lucieer, A. Ludwig, M. Ludwig, P. Lyytikäinen-Saarenmaa, Q. Ma, N. Mansuy, J. M. Peña, G. Marino, M. Maroschek, M. P. Martín, D. Martín-Benito, P. Matham, S. Mazzoni, F. Meloni, A. Menzel, H. Meyer, M. Miraki, G. Moreno, D. Moreno-Fernández, H. C. Muller-Landau, M. Mälicke, J. Möhring, J. Müllerova, S. S. Naidu, D. Nardi, P. Neumeier, M. D. Nita, R. Näsi, L. Oppgenoorth, S. Orunbaev, M. Palmer, T. Paul, M. Pfenning, A. Potts, G. L. Prasanna, S. Prober, S. Puliti, A. J. Pérez-Luque, O. Pérez-Priego, C. Reudenbach, J. Revuelto, G. Rivas-Torres, P. Roberge, P. P. Roggero, C. Rossi, N. K. Ruehr, P. Ruiz-Benito, C. M. Runge, G. G. A. Satta, B. Scanu, M. Scherer-Lorenzen, F. Schiefer, C. Schiller, J. Schladebach, M. Schmehl, J. Schmid, T. A. Schmidt, S. Schwarz, R. Seidl, T. Seifert, A. S. Barba, E. Shafeian, A. Shapiro, L. de Simone, H. Sohrabi, S. Soltani, L. Sotomayor, B. Sparrow, B. S. C. Steer, M. Stenson, B. Stöckigt, Y. Su, J. Suomalainen, E. Tamudo, M. J. T. Barbieri, E. Tomelleri, M. Torresani, K. Trepekli, S. Ullah, S. Ullah, J. Umlauft, N. Vargas-Ramírez, C. Vatandaslar, V. Visacki, M. Volpi, V. Vásquez, C. Wallis, B. Weinstein, H. Weiser, S. Wich, T. C. Ximena, P. J. Zarco-Tejada, K. Zdunic, K. Zielewska-Büttner, R. A. de Oliveira, L. van Wagtendonk, V. von Dosky, and T. Kattenborn Deadtrees.earth — An open-access and interactive database for centimeter-scale aerial imagery to uncover global tree mortality dynamics. Remote Sensing of Environment 332, pp. 115027. External Links: ISSN 0034-4257, Document Cited by: §1.2.
• Murtiyoso et al. (2024) A. Murtiyoso, C. Cabo, A. Singh, D. Obaya, W. Cherlet, J. Stoddart, C. Fol, M. Beloiu Schwenke, N. Rehush, K. Stereńczak, K. Calders, V. Griess, and M. Mokros A Review of Software Solutions to Process Ground-based Point Clouds in Forest Applications. Current Forestry Reports 10, pp. 401–419. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.2.
• Nesha et al. (2021) K. Nesha, M. Herold, V. De Sy, A. E. Duchelle, C. Martius, A. Branthomme, M. Garzuglia, O. Jonsson, and A. Pekkarinen An assessment of data sources, data quality and changes in national forest monitoring capacities in the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005–2020. Environmental Research Letters 16 (5), pp. 054029. External Links: ISSN 1748-9326, Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Nguyen et al. (2026a) T. T. Nguyen, D. Lusk, K. Gerberding, J. Vajna-Jehle, T. Vu, D. V. Le, T. Vo, P. L. Nguyen, Y. Kawanishi, T. Komamizu, I. Ide, J. Frey, and T. Kattenborn SelectAnyTree: a promptable instance segmentation model for 3D forest LiDAR point clouds. External Links: Document, 2606.27491, Link Cited by: §3.2.
• Nguyen et al. (2026b) T. T. Nguyen, T. Vu, D. V. Le, Y. Kawanishi, T. Komamizu, I. Ide, and T. Kattenborn ForestMamba: sparse Mamba with geometry-guided queries for 3D forest point cloud segmentation. External Links: Document, 2606.01549, Link Cited by: Figure 1, §2.2, §3.2.
• Nowosad et al. (2026) J. Nowosad, C. Bonannella, D. Görgen, M. Jemeljanova, T. Kattenborn, J. Linnenbrink, H. Meyer, M. Nussbaum, L. Patelli, R. Simoes, and E. Uuemaa Navigating challenges in spatial machine learning: validation, uncertainty, algorithms, and reproducibility. ERDKUNDE. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.6.
• Owen and Lines (2024) H. J. F. Owen and E. R. Lines Common field measures and geometric assumptions of tree shape produce consistently biased estimates of tree and canopy structure in mixed mediterranean forests. 165. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Öztürk et al. (2026) A. Öztürk, C. Cabo, M. P. Eichhorn, M. Hollaus, A. Iglseder, M. Mokroš, C. Torresan, Y. Wang, and K. Stereńczak Barriers and gaps in the implementation of close-range remote sensing technologies in forestry. Journal of Forestry Research 37 (1). External Links: Document, ISSN 1993-0607 Cited by: §1.2, §1.2.
• Pan et al. (2013) Y. Pan, R. A. Birdsey, O. L. Phillips, and R. B. Jackson The structure, distribution, and biomass of the world’s forests. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics 44 (1), pp. 593–622. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §3.5.
• Pretzsch et al. (2002) H. Pretzsch, P. Biber, and J. Ďurský The single tree-based stand simulator silva: construction, application and evaluation. Forest ecology and management 162 (1), pp. 3–21. External Links: Document Cited by: §3.4.
• Puliti et al. (2024) S. Puliti, C. Fischer, and R. Astrup BranchPoseNet: Characterizing tree branching with a deep learning-based pose estimation approach. arXiv. External Links: 2409.14755, Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Puliti et al. (2025) S. Puliti, E. R. Lines, J. Müllerová, J. Frey, Z. Schindler, A. Straker, M. J. Allen, L. Winiwarter, N. Rehush, H. Hristova, B. Murray, K. Calders, N. Coops, B. Höfle, L. Irwin, S. Junttila, M. Krůček, G. Krok, K. Král, S. R. Levick, L. Luck, A. Missarov, M. Mokroš, H. J. F. Owen, K. Stereńczak, T. P. Pitkänen, N. Puletti, N. Saarinen, C. Hopkinson, L. Terryn, C. Torresan, E. Tomelleri, H. Weiser, and R. Astrup Benchmarking tree species classification from proximally sensed laser scanning data: Introducing the FOR-species20K dataset. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 16 (4), pp. 801–818. External Links: ISSN 2041-210X, Document Cited by: §1.1, §1.2, §2.2, §3.2.
• Puliti et al. (2023) S. Puliti, G. Pearse, P. Surový, L. Wallace, M. Hollaus, M. Wielgosz, and R. Astrup FOR-instance: a UAV laser scanning benchmark dataset for semantic and instance segmentation of individual trees. arXiv. External Links: 2309.01279, Document Cited by: §1.1, §1.2, §3.2, §3.2.
• Puliti et al. (2026) S. Puliti, B. Xiang, M. Wielgosz, E. Handegard, N. Cattaneo, M. Vergarechea, T. Gobakken, J. Hyyppä, E. Næsset, M. Vastaranta, T. Yrttimaa, and R. Astrup FOR-age: benchmarking individual tree age estimation using 3D deep learning on dense laser scanning data. Remote Sensing of Environment 342, pp. 115462. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §1.2.
• Rebmann et al. (2018) C. Rebmann, M. Aubinet, H. Schmid, N. Arriga, M. Aurela, G. Burba, R. Clement, A. De Ligne, G. Fratini, B. Gielen, J. Grace, A. Graf, P. Gross, S. Haapanala, M. Herbst, L. Hörtnagl, A. Ibrom, L. Joly, N. Kljun, O. Kolle, A. Kowalski, A. Lindroth, D. Loustau, I. Mammarella, M. Mauder, L. Merbold, S. Metzger, M. Mölder, L. Montagnani, D. Papale, M. Pavelka, M. Peichl, M. Roland, P. Serrano-Ortiz, L. Siebicke, R. Steinbrecher, J. Tuovinen, T. Vesala, G. Wohlfahrt, and D. Franz ICOS eddy covariance flux-station site setup: a review. 32 (4), pp. 471–494. External Links: Document Cited by: §3.5.
• Richardson (2023) A. D. Richardson PhenoCam: an evolving, open-source tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem-scale phenology. 342. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.2.
• Robertson et al. (2014) T. Robertson, M. Döring, R. Guralnick, D. Bloom, J. Wieczorek, K. Braak, J. Otegui, L. Russell, and P. Desmet The GBIF integrated publishing toolkit: facilitating the efficient publishing of biodiversity data on the internet. PLoS ONE 9 (8), pp. e102623. External Links: Document, ISSN 1932-6203 Cited by: §1.2.
• Santoro et al. (2021) M. Santoro, O. Cartus, N. Carvalhais, D. M. A. Rozendaal, V. Avitabile, A. Araza, S. de Bruin, M. Herold, S. Quegan, P. Rodríguez-Veiga, H. Balzter, J. Carreiras, D. Schepaschenko, M. Korets, M. Shimada, T. Itoh, Á. Moreno Martínez, J. Cavlovic, R. Cazzolla Gatti, P. da Conceição Bispo, N. Dewnath, N. Labrière, J. Liang, J. Lindsell, E. T. A. Mitchard, A. Morel, A. M. Pacheco Pascagaza, C. M. Ryan, F. Slik, G. Vaglio Laurin, H. Verbeeck, A. Wijaya, and S. Willcock The global forest above-ground biomass pool for 2010 estimated from high-resolution satellite observations. Earth System Science Data 13 (8), pp. 3927–3950. External Links: ISSN 1866-3508, Document Cited by: §1.1.
• ScanForest (2026) ScanForestData(Website) External Links: Link Cited by: §1.2.
• Schäfer et al. (2023) J. Schäfer, H. Weiser, L. Winiwarter, B. Höfle, S. Schmidtlein, and F. E. Fassnacht Generating synthetic laser scanning data of forests by combining forest inventory information, a tree point cloud database and an open-source laser scanning simulator. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research 96 (5), pp. 653–671. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §3.4.
• Schiefer et al. (2023) F. Schiefer, S. Schmidtlein, A. Frick, J. Frey, R. Klinke, K. Zielewska-Büttner, S. Junttila, A. Uhl, and T. Kattenborn UAV-based reference data for the prediction of fractional cover of standing deadwood from sentinel time series. ISPRS Open Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 8, pp. 100034. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.2, §3.3.
• Schiefer et al. (2025) F. Schiefer, S. Schmidtlein, H. Hartmann, F. Schnabel, and T. Kattenborn Large-scale remote sensing reveals that tree mortality in Germany appears to be greater than previously expected. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research 98 (4), pp. 535–549. External Links: ISSN 0015-752X, Document Cited by: §1.1, §3.3, §3.3.
• Schindler et al. (2023) Z. Schindler, T. Seifert, J. P. Sheppard, and C. Morhart Allometric models for above-ground biomass, carbon and nutrient content of wild cherry (Prunus avium L.) trees in agroforestry systems. 80. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Schladebach et al. (2025) J. Schladebach, B. Heim, L. Enguehard, M. Wieczorek, J. Broers, R. Jackisch, J. Gloy, K. Hao, J. Tretton, A. Gorshunova, and S. Kruse BorFIT: a novel LiDAR-based training dataset for individual tree segmentation and species detection in northern boreal forests. Note: Preprint External Links: Document Cited by: §1.2.
• Schnabel et al. (2025) F. Schnabel, R. Beugnon, B. Yang, R. Richter, N. Eisenhauer, Y. Huang, X. Liu, C. Wirth, S. Cesarz, A. Fichtner, M. D. Perles-Garcia, G. J. A. Hähn, W. Härdtle, M. Kunz, N. C. Castro Izaguirre, P. A. Niklaus, G. von Oheimb, B. Schmid, S. Trogisch, M. Wendisch, K. Ma, and H. Bruelheide Tree diversity increases forest temperature buffering via enhancing canopy density and structural diversity. Ecology Letters 28 (3), pp. e70096. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §1.1, §3.4.
• Schumacher et al. (2026) J. Schumacher, A. Cescatti, G. Chirici, G. D’Amico, S. Francini, J. Hertzler, L. Mehtätalo, G. J. Nabuurs, M. Nilsson, J. Pitkänen, and J. Breidenbach Federated learning in forest resource modelling and monitoring: bridging data confidentiality and collaborative research. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 152, pp. 105452. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Schütz et al. (2020) M. Schütz, S. Ohrhallinger, and M. Wimmer Fast Out-of-Core Octree Generation for Massive Point Clouds. Computer Graphics Forum 39 (7), pp. 155–167. External Links: ISSN 0167-7055, 1467-8659, Document Cited by: §2.2.
• Schütz (2016) M. Schütz Potree: rendering large point clouds in web browsers. Master’s Thesis, Vienna University of Technology. External Links: Link Cited by: §2.3.
• Seidl et al. (2017) R. Seidl, D. Thom, M. Kautz, D. Martin-Benito, M. Peltoniemi, G. Vacchiano, J. Wild, D. Ascoli, M. Petr, J. Honkaniemi, M. J. Lexer, V. Trotsiuk, P. Mairota, M. Svoboda, M. Fabrika, T. A. Nagel, and C. P. O. Reyer Forest disturbances under climate change. Nature Climate Change 7 (6), pp. 395–402. External Links: ISSN 1758-6798, Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Sharma et al. (2026) A. Sharma, C. Mosig, L. Drees, S. Soltani, J. Vajna-Jehle, A. Sheppard, B. Ahmadi, J. Schmid, P. Neumeier, N. Jacobs, J. D. Wegner, and T. Kattenborn deadtrees.earth-aerial: a multi-resolution aerial image dataset for tree cover and mortality detection. Note: Preprint External Links: 2605.19605, Link Cited by: §3.2.
• Sheppard et al. (2017) J. Sheppard, C. Morhart, J. Hackenberg, and H. Spiecker Terrestrial laser scanning as a tool for assessing tree growth. 10 (1), pp. 172–179. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Sierra et al. (2025) E. Sierra, L. E. Gillespie, S. Soltani, M. Exposito-Alonso, and T. Kattenborn Divshift: exploring domain-specific distribution shifts in large-scale, volunteer-collected biodiversity datasets. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 39, pp. 28386–28396. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.6.
• SmartForest (2026a) SmartForestCodes and datasets(Website) External Links: Link Cited by: §1.2.
• SmartForest (2026b) SmartForestForestSens(Website) External Links: Link Cited by: §1.2.
• Soiland-Reyes et al. (2022) S. Soiland-Reyes, P. Sefton, M. Crosas, L. J. Castro, F. Coppens, J. M. Fernández, D. Garijo, B. Grüning, M. La Rosa, S. Leo, E. Ó Carragáin, M. Portier, A. Trisovic, RO-Crate Community, P. Groth, and C. Goble Packaging research artefacts with RO-Crate. Data Science 5 (2), pp. 97–138. External Links: ISSN 2451-8484, Document Cited by: §2.2.
• Sperlich and Jaksztat (2026) GrowPy - A 3D Tree Model Library Generator for Unreal Engine using The Grove External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §3.4.
• Sperlich (2026) Forest Digital Twin Database - A Supabase-powered PostgreSQL/PostGIS Schema External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §3.4, §3.4.
• Stereńczak et al. (2026) K. Stereńczak, M. Kulicki, B. Kraszewski, T. A. Gasica, K. Mitelsztedt, M. Mielcarek, E. Tangwa, Y. Erfanifard, M. Brach, P. Hawryło, H. H. Handayani, A. N. R. Ramadhani, G. Krok, A. J. G. Armazeta, D. R. Arisandy, F. Błaś, R. A. Damayanti, R. J. De Yong, Deden, K. Fabjan, F. N. Fathimah, J. Górska, Q. P. A. N. Ila, R. D. Irawan, F. Iwaniec, A. Jabłoński, W. Krawczyk, K. Kwartnik, B. Kwaśniewski, R. Mardhatillah, R. A. Massayudevi, S. B. A. Murti, D. Ainand Nabila, R. Novatiana, W. Prasetyo, F. Pratama, A. T. U. Ramadhani, N. Rębisz, H. F. F. Rizannyansyah, Z. Seremak, B. Skomorucha, D. Skóra, N. Sukmawan, C. A. P. Taslyanto, G. Turemka, E. Valika, D. M. Warman, A. Wilczyńska, K. Winkowska, K. Witkowski, S. A. Yudisti, N. Zdunek, D. Zieliński, and A. Ziółkowski TreeScanPL10k: a central european tree species dataset of annotated terrestrial laser scanning point clouds. Zenodo. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §1.2, §2.6, §3.2.
• Tebaldini et al. (2023) S. Tebaldini, M. M. d’Alessandro, L. M. H. Ulander, P. Bennet, A. Gustavsson, A. Coccia, K. Macedo, M. Disney, P. Wilkes, H. Spors, N. Schumacher, J. Hanuš, J. Novotný, B. Brede, H. Bartholomeus, A. Lau, J. van der Zee, M. Herold, D. Schuettemeyer, and K. Scipal TomoSense: A unique 3D dataset over temperate forest combining multi-frequency mono- and bi-static tomographic SAR with terrestrial, UAV and airborne lidar, and in-situ forest census. Remote Sensing of Environment 290, pp. 113532. External Links: ISSN 0034-4257, Document Cited by: §2.6.
• The Galaxy Community (2026) The Galaxy Community Galaxy for accessible, reproducible, and collaborative data analyses: 2026 update. Nucleic Acids Research 54 (W1), pp. W105–W116. External Links: ISSN 0305-1048, 1362-4962, Document Cited by: §2.2.
• Tomppo et al. (2008) E. Tomppo, H. Olsson, G. Ståhl, M. Nilsson, O. Hagner, and M. Katila Combining national forest inventory field plots and remote sensing data for forest databases. Remote Sensing of Environment 112 (5), pp. 1982–1999. External Links: ISSN 0034-4257, Document Cited by: §1.1.
• C. Vidal, I. A. Alberdi, L. Hernández Mateo, and J. J. Redmond (Eds.) (2016) C. Vidal, I. A. Alberdi, L. Hernández Mateo, and J. J. Redmond (Eds.) National forest inventories: assessment of wood availability and use. Springer International Publishing, Cham. External Links: Document, ISBN 978-3-319-44015-6 Cited by: §1.1.
• Wang et al. (2026) J. Wang, X. Huang, P. Maydhisudhiwongs, M. Letard, B. Teuscher, P. Gyawali, M. Werner, and K. Anders topo4d: topographic 4D STAC extension for curating and cataloging multi-source geospatial time series datasets. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XI-2-2026, pp. 545–552. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §3.1.
• Wang et al. (2025) M. Wang, H. Blondeel, L. Gillerot, H. Verbeeck, F. Van Coillie, F. Meunier, S. Zhang, P. De Frenne, K. Verheyen, and K. Calders Influence of forest canopy structure on temperature buffering in young planted forests with varied tree species compositions revealed by terrestrial laser scanning. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 371, pp. 110640. External Links: Document Cited by: §3.4.
• Watson et al. (2018) J. E. M. Watson, T. Evans, O. Venter, B. Williams, A. Tulloch, C. Stewart, I. Thompson, J. C. Ray, K. Murray, A. Salazar, C. McAlpine, P. Potapov, J. Walston, J. G. Robinson, M. Painter, D. Wilkie, C. Filardi, W. F. Laurance, R. A. Houghton, S. Maxwell, H. Grantham, C. Samper, S. Wang, L. Laestadius, R. K. Runting, G. A. Silva-Chávez, J. Ervin, and D. Lindenmayer The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2 (4), pp. 599–610. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §3.5.
• Weiser and Höfle (2026) H. Weiser and B. Höfle Advancing vegetation monitoring with virtual laser scanning of dynamic scenes (VLS-4D): opportunities, implementations and future perspectives. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 17 (1), pp. 33–51. External Links: Document Cited by: §3.4.
• Wielgosz et al. (2024) M. Wielgosz, S. Puliti, B. Xiang, K. Schindler, and R. Astrup SegmentAnyTree: A sensor and platform agnostic deep learning model for tree segmentation using laser scanning data. Remote Sensing of Environment 313, pp. 114367. External Links: ISSN 0034-4257, Document Cited by: §1.1, §2.2, §3.2.
• Wilkinson et al. (2016) M. D. Wilkinson, M. Dumontier, I. J. Aalbersberg, G. Appleton, M. Axton, A. Baak, N. Blomberg, J. Boiten, L. B. da Silva Santos, P. E. Bourne, J. Bouwman, A. J. Brookes, T. Clark, M. Crosas, I. Dillo, O. Dumon, S. Edmunds, C. T. Evelo, R. Finkers, A. Gonzalez-Beltran, A. J.G. Gray, P. Groth, C. Goble, J. S. Grethe, J. Heringa, P. A. ’t Hoen, R. Hooft, T. Kuhn, R. Kok, J. Kok, S. J. Lusher, M. E. Martone, A. Mons, A. L. Packer, B. Persson, P. Rocca-Serra, M. Roos, R. van Schaik, S. Sansone, E. Schultes, T. Sengstag, T. Slater, G. Strawn, M. A. Swertz, M. Thompson, J. van der Lei, E. van Mulligen, J. Velterop, A. Waagmeester, P. Wittenburg, K. Wolstencroft, J. Zhao, and B. Mons The fair guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data 3 (1). External Links: ISSN 2052-4463, Link, Document Cited by: §1.2.
• Winiwarter et al. (2022) L. Winiwarter, A. M. Esmorís Pena, H. Weiser, K. Anders, J. Martínez Sánchez, M. Searle, and B. Höfle Virtual laser scanning with helios++: a novel take on ray tracing-based simulation of topographic full-waveform 3d laser scanning. Remote Sensing of Environment 269, pp. 112772. External Links: Document Cited by: §3.4.
• Wittke et al. (2024) S. Wittke, M. Campos, L. Ruoppa, R. Echriti, Y. Wang, A. Gołoś, A. Kukko, J. Hyyppä, and E. Puttonen LiPheStream - A 18-month high spatiotemporal resolution point cloud time series of Boreal trees from Finland. Scientific Data 11 (1), pp. 1281. External Links: ISSN 2052-4463, Document Cited by: §2.6.
• Xiang et al. (2023) B. Xiang, T. Peters, T. Kontogianni, F. Vetterli, S. Puliti, R. Astrup, and K. Schindler Towards accurate instance segmentation in large-scale lidar point clouds. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences X-1/W1-2023, pp. 605–612. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §1.1.
• Xiang et al. (2024) B. Xiang, M. Wielgosz, T. Kontogianni, T. Peters, S. Puliti, R. Astrup, and K. Schindler Automated forest inventory: Analysis of high-density airborne LiDAR point clouds with 3D deep learning. Remote Sensing of Environment 305, pp. 114078. External Links: ISSN 0034-4257, Document Cited by: §1.1.
• Xiang et al. (2025) B. Xiang, M. Wielgosz, S. Puliti, K. Král, M. Krůček, A. Missarov, and R. Astrup ForestFormer3D: A Unified Framework for End-to-End Segmentation of Forest LiDAR 3D Point Clouds. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 24717–24727. External Links: Link Cited by: §1.1.

Appendix A Dataset metadata

Table A.1summarizes the metadata collected through the dataset upload form. Required fields refer to form submission, not to a guarantee of metadata completeness or scientific accuracy. The field set can evolve with community requirements. Preprocessing categories describe steps reported by contributors; they do not constitute a reproducible record of algorithms and parameter settings. Acquisition date is recorded, but leaf-on or leaf-off state and weather conditions have no dedicated fields. Contributors can provide additional context in the description or supplementary material.

Appendix B Platform architecture

Appendix C Digital forest twin integration

注意转载授权 · 阅读原文