Search for: All records

Abstract Canopy openness is an important forest characteristic related to understory light environment and productivity. Although many methods exist to estimate canopy openness, comparisons of their performance tend to focus on relatively narrow ranges of canopy conditions and forest types. To address this gap, we compared two popular approaches for estimating canopy openness, traditional spherical densiometer and modern smartphone hemispherical photography, across a large range of canopy conditions (from closed canopy to large gaps) and forest types (from low-elevation broadleaf to high-elevation conifer forests) across four states in the northeastern United States. We took 988 field canopy openness measurements (494 per instrument) and compared them across canopy conditions using linear regression and t-tests. The extensive replication allowed us to quantify differences between the methods that may otherwise go unnoticed. Relative to the densiometer, smartphone photography overestimated low canopy openness (<10%) but it underestimated higher canopy openness (>10%), regardless of forest type.