2018
DOI: 10.2112/si85-048.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

UAV Photogrammetry for Elevation Monitoring of Intertidal Mudflats

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They conducted a very similar survey in an area of~10 ha flying at 100 m and with a GCP density of 1.5 GCP/ha and were able to reach an error ranging between 3.9 and 2.7 cm. In other studies where the UAVs flew at higher altitudes, between 80 to 180 m, and the GCP density was very low (below 0.2 GCP/ha), the error increased to 10-20 cm till 5 m [111][112][113]. The relation between GCP density and RMSE from the previously cited researches is shown in Figure 11.…”
Section: Comparisons With Other Studies With Uav In Wetlandsmentioning
confidence: 76%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…They conducted a very similar survey in an area of~10 ha flying at 100 m and with a GCP density of 1.5 GCP/ha and were able to reach an error ranging between 3.9 and 2.7 cm. In other studies where the UAVs flew at higher altitudes, between 80 to 180 m, and the GCP density was very low (below 0.2 GCP/ha), the error increased to 10-20 cm till 5 m [111][112][113]. The relation between GCP density and RMSE from the previously cited researches is shown in Figure 11.…”
Section: Comparisons With Other Studies With Uav In Wetlandsmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…The distribution of the GCPs for Brunier et al (2020) [110] and Jaud et al (2016) [107] was homogeneous and the distance between each GCP was mostly coherent, which probably resulted in achieving a low RMSE (i.e., 3-4 cm). In studies with greatly extended areas, the GCP distribution was neither dense [112] nor homogeneous [111,113], causing higher RMSE (i.e., >10 cm). The best GCP distribution seems to be around~2.5 and 3 GCP/ha, which is 2-3 GCP every 100 m homogeneously and equally spaced around the tidal flat.…”
Section: Comparisons With Other Studies With Uav In Wetlandsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…A high‐resolution digital elevation model (DEM) of the creek intertidal zone was obtained from UAV photogrammetry during the lowest tide with accuracy of < 10 cm per pixel (Dai et al 2018). The DEM was combined with water depths to estimate the intertidal flooded area and water volume upstream of the time‐series station every 5 min.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the combination of a greatest number of coastal no-fly zones (due to controlled aerospace from the military, proximity to aerodromes or natural protected areas) with crowded beaches can discourage UAV citizen science coastal applications in EASA countries, our protocol can also be applied to other environments or scientific disciplines where accurate cost-effective topographic monitoring is needed. In fact, multi-temporal UAV-SfM has already been used by professional researchers around the world for monitoring erosion in mudflats 72 , badlands 73 , agricultural watersheds 74 , rivers 75 and open-pit mines 76 . Additionally, UAV-SfM topographic data has also been used for non-erosion purposes to monitor both natural processes, such as landslide dynamics 77 , sediment retention dams filling 78 , crops growth variability 79 , forest trees growth 80 , snow depth 81 and glaciers melting dynamics 82 , or anthropogenic processes, such as landfills growth rates 83 , environmental contamination 84 or hiking trails conditions 85 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%