Ran a 3P on 60 acres of 30–35 yr DF near Forks this week and the handheld LiDAR stem map was 6% high on gross over tape/TruPulse checks, which could push cut levels past our sustained yield target if folks price that in. Anyone else tightening DBH bias checks or adjusting KZ when pairing sensors like this?
Seeing the same — ours run “about 6% high on gross,” so we do a 15-tree DBH/height bias check across the range each stand and apply a 0.94 volume factor in the app before touching KZ (bias worsens >18" DBH). If that holds on two stands we nudge KZ to the corrected variance — measure twice, cruise once; does your workflow handle bark (OB->IB) on-device or post?
I’ve found that pairing the handheld LiDAR data with a few targeted ground checks really helps — a 10% correction on over-optimistic volume estimates can keep us within those sustained yield limits. Have you thought about adjusting your volume factor based on the average DBH in your surveys?
It’s interesting how close we are in those estimates, isn’t it? I’ve been adjusting my DBH biases too, but I’m curious, how do you decide when to factor in those adjustments on the fly? @jreed42, does it influence your pricing strategies?
Adjusting for LiDAR overestimations feels a bit like trying to find the right seasoning for a dish — too much can ruin the flavor! I’ve been calibrating my sensors with more ground checks to fine-tune those estimates too — how often are you checking back with the tape measures, @jameson512?