2011
DOI: 10.1002/esp.2199
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of GPS and lidar salt marsh DEMs

Abstract: Digital elevation models (DEMs) were compared to characterize how well airborne lidar (light detection and ranging) data depict the microtopography of a salt marsh. 72,000 GPS points and 700,000 lidar points from a 1km 2 salt marsh island were linearly interpolated using identical DEM configurations. Overall, 78% of lidar elevations were within AE0.15m of the high precision GPS elevations. Spatial arrangement of difference values reveal that lidar performed best on the marsh platform, and poorly along tidal cr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Common filter algorithms are capable of removing points reflected from higher vegetation and thus can improve accuracies of bare earth models, but fail to detect short vegetation, which is not significantly higher than surrounding bare ground (Chassereau et al 2011). Thus in short stature environments, specifically in herbaceous cover, vegetation and ground could not be differentially mapped by simple filtering.…”
Section: Methods and Algorithmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Common filter algorithms are capable of removing points reflected from higher vegetation and thus can improve accuracies of bare earth models, but fail to detect short vegetation, which is not significantly higher than surrounding bare ground (Chassereau et al 2011). Thus in short stature environments, specifically in herbaceous cover, vegetation and ground could not be differentially mapped by simple filtering.…”
Section: Methods and Algorithmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, dense vegetation, characterized by relatively less openings in vegetation cover limits laser penetration into the ground (Toyra et al 2003), making terrain and thus vegetation height estimates increasingly challenging and less accurate (Chassereau et al 2011, Hopkinson et al 2005. Second, relatively shorter vegetation and low variation in vegetation height and canopy characteristics along vertical profile of the canopy erode predictability of lidar derived variables in vegetation estimates (Li et al 2015, Rosso et al 2006, Wang et al 2007).…”
Section: Effects On Vegetation Estimatesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The effect of enabling these optional treatments is further discussed in the results section. Although methods exist to account for vegetation cover in the DEM (Hladik and Alber, 2012;Wang et al, 2009;Sadro et al, 2007;Chassereau et al, 2011;Montané and Torres, 2006), we chose not to apply these corrections as we wanted to ensure that the TIP method can be applied without information on the vegetation assemblages at a given site.…”
Section: Preprocessing Topographic Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The topographic data necessary to identify marsh platforms already exist: the proliferation of freely available highresolution topographic datasets from lidar or structure from motion (SfM) techniques means that DEMs with a grid cell size below 1 m are increasingly common on salt marshes and offer vertical accuracies below 20 cm even without correcting for vegetation (Sadro et al, 2007;Wang et al, 2009;Chassereau et al, 2011). At these resolutions, most scarps and channels are detectable on a DEM, and several automated topographic methods already allow the identification of tidal channel networks (Fagherazzi et al, 1999;Liu et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The topographic data necessary to identify marsh platforms already exist: the multiplication of freely available high resolution topographic datasets from lidar or structure from motion (SfM) techniques means that DEMs of horizontal resolutions below 1 m are increasingly common on salt marshes, and offer vertical accuracies below 20 cm even without correcting for vegetation (Sadro et al, 2007;Wang et al, 2009;Chassereau et al, 2011). At these resolutions, most scarps and channels are detectable on a DEM, and several automated topographic methods already allow the identification of tidal channel networks (Fagherazzi et al, 1999;Liu et al, 2015).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%