Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) data provide 3-D measurements of vegetation structure and have the potential to support the calibration and validation of satellite and airborne sensors. The increasing range of different commercial and scientific TLS instruments holds challenges for data and instrument interoperability. Using data from various TLS sources will be critical to upscale study areas or compare data. In this paper, we provide a general framework to compare the interoperability of TLS instruments. We compare three TLS instruments that are the same make and model, the RIEGL VZ-400. We compare the range accuracy and evaluate the manufacturer's radiometric calibration for the uncalibrated return intensities. Our results show that the range accuracy between instruments is comparable and within the manufacturer's specifications. This means that the spatial XYZ data of different instruments can be combined into a single data set. Our findings demonstrate that radiometric calibration is instrument specific and needs to be carried out for each instrument individually before including reflectanceinformation in TLS analysis. We show that the residuals between the calibrated reflectance panels and the apparent reflectance measured by the instrument are greatest for highest reflectance panels (residuals ranging from 0.058 to 0.312).

Forest structure attributes produced from terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) rely on normalisation of the point cloud values from sensor coordinates to height above ground. One method to do this is through the derivation of an accurate and repeatable digital elevation model (DEM) from the TLS point cloud that is used to adjust the height. The primary aim of this paper was to test a number of TLS scan configurations, filtering options and output DEM grid resolutions (from 0.02 m to 1.0 m) to define a best practice method for DEM generation in sub-tropical forest environments. The generated DEMs were compared to both total station (TS) spot heights and a 1-m DEM generated from airborne laser scanning (ALS) to assess accuracy. The comparison to TS spot heights found that a DEM produced using the minimum elevation (minimum Z value) from a point cloud derived from a single scan had mean errors >1 m for DEM grid resolutions <0.2 m at a 25-m plot radius. At a 1-m grid resolution, the mean error was 0.19 m. The addition of a filtering approach that combined a median filter with a progressive morphological filter and a global percentile filter was able to reduce mean error of the 0.02-m grid resolution DEM to 0.31 m at a 25-m plot radius using all returns. Using multiple scan positions to derive the DEM reduced the mean error for all DEM methods. Our results suggest that a simple minimum Z filtering DEM method using a single scan at the grid resolution of 1 m can produce mean errors <0.2 m, but for a small grid resolution, such as 0.02 m, a more complex filtering approach and multiple scan positions are required to reduced mean errors. The additional validation data provided by the 1-m ALS DEM showed that when using the combined filtering method on a point cloud derived from a single scan at the plot centre, errors between 0.1 and 0.5 m occurred in the TLS DEM for all tested grid resolutions at a plot radius of 25 m. These findings present a protocol for DEM production from TLS data at a range of grid resolutions and provide an overview of factors affecting DEMs produced from single and multiple TLS scan positions.