2017
DOI: 10.1080/15481603.2017.1339987
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Airborne LiDAR point cloud in mapping of fluvial forms: a case study of a Hungarian floodplain

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

4
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
11
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The sampled point bar and swale series form a line, occurring approximately 3-25 m one after another, making the floodplain surface wavy with their 0.3-0.5 m height differences. Swales have denser vegetation than the point bars [60] and in some cases they have water cover. The study area serves as pasture and grazing land.…”
Section: Study Sitementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The sampled point bar and swale series form a line, occurring approximately 3-25 m one after another, making the floodplain surface wavy with their 0.3-0.5 m height differences. Swales have denser vegetation than the point bars [60] and in some cases they have water cover. The study area serves as pasture and grazing land.…”
Section: Study Sitementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, traditional statistical analysis or machine learning can provide valuable data for all types of geographical analyses (e.g. Allen, C. et al 2016;Szabó, Z. et al 2017;Balázs, B. et al 2018;Enyedi, P. et al 2018). Our study focused on image classification, but the procedure also works with tabular data.…”
Section: The Linear Type Of Discriminant Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Point bars are always in a higher terrain position in relation to swales; accordingly, swales' water coverage lasts longer, and the vegetation's water supply is relevantly better. In our previous study [50], we revealed that the vegetation density is significantly higher in swales; therefore, the number of ground points per m 2 was significantly smaller (5.88 vs. 4.91). NDVI differed significantly (F = 1567, p < 0.001), which was a relevant background factor which influenced the model accuracy when investigating these fluvial forms: removing the dense vegetation from the surface cannot be as accurate for swales as point bars.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 67%
“…Thus, larger cloths (larger kernel windows) have more relating points where the algorithm can validate the threshold setting. An important result is that point density was 4 points/m 2 ; furthermore, calculating with multiple echoes, it can even reach 10 points/m 2 [50]. Accordingly, a finer cloth size would have been reasonable, the recommendation of the developer is one-third of the point spacing (http://ramm.bnu.edu.cn/researchers/wumingzhang/english/default_contributions.htm), but according to the mean difference between the two settings, the 5 m cloth was 0.012 m better (for the neighborhood-related filter (Figure 4)).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation