Comparing LiDAR and SfM digital surface models for three land cover types

Airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) and unmanned aerial vehicle structure from motion (UAV-SfM) are two major methods used to produce digital surface models (DSMs) for geomorphological studies. Previous studies have used both types of DSM datasets interchangeably and ignored their differenc...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Liao Jianghua, Zhou Jinxing, Yang Wentao
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	De Gruyter 2021
Materias:	dsm sources combined dsms dsms quantification land cover types Geology QE1-996.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/17a23ab038ed4b7888a52d7a32645304
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:17a23ab038ed4b7888a52d7a32645304
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:17a23ab038ed4b7888a52d7a326453042021-12-05T14:10:48ZComparing LiDAR and SfM digital surface models for three land cover types2391-544710.1515/geo-2020-0257https://doaj.org/article/17a23ab038ed4b7888a52d7a326453042021-05-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2020-0257https://doaj.org/toc/2391-5447Airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) and unmanned aerial vehicle structure from motion (UAV-SfM) are two major methods used to produce digital surface models (DSMs) for geomorphological studies. Previous studies have used both types of DSM datasets interchangeably and ignored their differences, whereas others have attempted to locally compare these differences. However, few studies have quantified these differences for different land cover types. Therefore, we simultaneously compared the two DSMs using airborne LiDAR and UAV-SfM for three land cover types (i.e. forest, wasteland, and bare land) in northeast China. Our results showed that the differences between the DSMs were the greatest for forest areas. Further, the average elevation of the UAV-SfM DSM was 0.4 m lower than that of the LiDAR DSM, with a 95th percentile difference of 3.62 m for the forest areas. Additionally, the average elevations of the SfM DSM for wasteland and bare land were 0.16 and 0.43 m lower, respectively, than those of the airborne LiDAR DSM; the 95th percentile differences were 0.67 and 0.64 m, respectively. The differences between the two DSMs were generally minor over areas with sparse vegetation and more significant for areas covered by tall dense trees. The findings of this research can guide the joint use of different types of DSMs in certain applications, such as land management and soil erosion studies. A comparison of the DSM types in complex terrains should be explored in the future.Liao JianghuaZhou JinxingYang WentaoDe Gruyterarticledsm sourcescombined dsmsdsms quantificationland cover typesGeologyQE1-996.5ENOpen Geosciences, Vol 13, Iss 1, Pp 497-504 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	dsm sources combined dsms dsms quantification land cover types Geology QE1-996.5
spellingShingle	dsm sources combined dsms dsms quantification land cover types Geology QE1-996.5 Liao Jianghua Zhou Jinxing Yang Wentao Comparing LiDAR and SfM digital surface models for three land cover types
description	Airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR) and unmanned aerial vehicle structure from motion (UAV-SfM) are two major methods used to produce digital surface models (DSMs) for geomorphological studies. Previous studies have used both types of DSM datasets interchangeably and ignored their differences, whereas others have attempted to locally compare these differences. However, few studies have quantified these differences for different land cover types. Therefore, we simultaneously compared the two DSMs using airborne LiDAR and UAV-SfM for three land cover types (i.e. forest, wasteland, and bare land) in northeast China. Our results showed that the differences between the DSMs were the greatest for forest areas. Further, the average elevation of the UAV-SfM DSM was 0.4 m lower than that of the LiDAR DSM, with a 95th percentile difference of 3.62 m for the forest areas. Additionally, the average elevations of the SfM DSM for wasteland and bare land were 0.16 and 0.43 m lower, respectively, than those of the airborne LiDAR DSM; the 95th percentile differences were 0.67 and 0.64 m, respectively. The differences between the two DSMs were generally minor over areas with sparse vegetation and more significant for areas covered by tall dense trees. The findings of this research can guide the joint use of different types of DSMs in certain applications, such as land management and soil erosion studies. A comparison of the DSM types in complex terrains should be explored in the future.
format	article
author	Liao Jianghua Zhou Jinxing Yang Wentao
author_facet	Liao Jianghua Zhou Jinxing Yang Wentao
author_sort	Liao Jianghua
title	Comparing LiDAR and SfM digital surface models for three land cover types
title_short	Comparing LiDAR and SfM digital surface models for three land cover types
title_full	Comparing LiDAR and SfM digital surface models for three land cover types
title_fullStr	Comparing LiDAR and SfM digital surface models for three land cover types
title_full_unstemmed	Comparing LiDAR and SfM digital surface models for three land cover types
title_sort	comparing lidar and sfm digital surface models for three land cover types
publisher	De Gruyter
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/17a23ab038ed4b7888a52d7a32645304
work_keys_str_mv	AT liaojianghua comparinglidarandsfmdigitalsurfacemodelsforthreelandcovertypes AT zhoujinxing comparinglidarandsfmdigitalsurfacemodelsforthreelandcovertypes AT yangwentao comparinglidarandsfmdigitalsurfacemodelsforthreelandcovertypes
_version_	1718371705112494080

Comparing LiDAR and SfM digital surface models for three land cover types

Ejemplares similares