Quantifying the effect of aerial imagery resolution in automated hydromorphological river characterisation

Remote Sensing

Volumn 8, Issue 8, 2016, Pages

  Casado, Monica Rivas ^a   Gonzalez, Rocio Ballesteros ^b   Wright, Ros ^c   Bellamy, Pat ^a  

^a CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b Regional Centre of Water Research (CREA)   (Spain)

^c ENVIRONMENT AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Comparison; Hydromorphology; Photogrammetry; Resolution; River management; Unmanned aerial vehicle

Indexed keywords

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY; AUTOMATION; CHARACTERIZATION; CRASHWORTHINESS; OPTICAL RESOLVING POWER; PHOTOGRAMMETRY; UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAV);

AUTOMATED CLASSIFICATION; COMPARISON; FEATURE IDENTIFICATION; HYDROMORPHOLOGY; IDENTIFICATION ERRORS; REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS; RIVER MANAGEMENT; VISUAL OBSERVATIONS;

RIVERS;

EID: 84983744598     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20724292     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/rs8080650     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council. National Water Quality Management Strategy: Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality; Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australian and New Zealand: Canberra, Australia, 2000.
2. U.S. Environment Protection Agency. Clean Water Act. Federal Water Act of 1972 (Codified as Amended at 33 U.S.C.); U.S. Environment Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
3. European Commission Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:5c835afb-2ec6-4577-bdf8-756d3d694eeb.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (accessed on 1 June 2016).
4. Belletti, B.; Rinaldi, M.; Buijse, A.D.; Gurnell, A.M.; Mosselman, E. A review of assessment methods for river hydromorphology. Environ. Earth Sci. 2014, 73, 2079-2100.
5. Newson, M.D.; Large, A.R.G. "Natural" rivers, "hydromorphological quality" and river restoration: A challenging new agenda for applied fluvial geomorphology. Earth Surf. Processes Landf. 2006, 31, 1606-1624.
6. Vaughan, I.P.; Diamond, M.; Gurnell, A.M.; Hall, K.A.; Jenkins, A.; Milner, N.J.; Naylor, L.A.; Sear, D.A.; Woodward, G.; Ormerod, S.J. Integrating ecology with hydromorphology: A priority for river science and management. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2009, 19, 113-125.
7. Buffagni, A.; Armanini, D.G.; Erba, S. Does the lentic-lotic character of rivers affect invertebrate metrics used in the assessment of ecological quality? J. Limnol. 2009, 68, 92-105.
8. Padmore, C.L. Biotopes and their hydraulics: A method for defining the physical component of freshwater quality. Freshwater Quality: Defining the Indefinable; Boon, P.J., Howell, D.L., Eds.; Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh Statonery Office: Edinburgh, UK, 1997; pp. 251-257.
9. Gilvear, D.J.; Davids, C.; Tyler, A.N. The use of remotely sensed data to detect channel hydromorphology; River Tummel, Scotland. River Res. Appl. 2004, 20, 795-811.
10. Scheifhacken, N.; Haase, U.; Gram-Radu, L.; Kozovyi, R.; Berendonk, T.U. How to assess hydromorphology? A comparison of Ukrainian and German approaches. Environ. Earth Sci. 2011, 65, 1483-1499.
11. Raven, P.J.; Holmes, N.T.H.; Charrier, P.; Dawson, F.H.; Naura, M.; Boon, P.J. Towards a harmonized approach for hydromorphological assessment of rivers in Europe: A qualitative comparison of three survey methods. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2002, 12, 405-424.
12. Raven, P.J.; Holmes, N.T.H.; Dawson, F.H.; Fox, P.J.A.; Everard, M.; Fozzaed, I.R.; Rouen, K.J. River Habitat Quality: The Physical Character of Rivers and Streams in the UK and Isle of Man; River Habitat Survey Report; Environment Agency: Bristol, UK, 1998.
13. MacVicar, B.J.; Piégay, H.; Henderson, A.; Comiti, F.; Oberlin, C.; Pecorari, E. Quantifying the temporal dynamics of wood in large rivers: Field trials of wood surveying, dating, tracking, and monitoring techniques. Earth Surf. Processes Landf. 2009, 34, 2031-2046.
14. Gómez-Candón, D.; De Castro, A.I.; López-Granados, F. Assessing the accuracy of mosaics from unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imagery for precision agriculture purposes in wheat. Precis. Agric. 2014, 15, 44-56.
15. Garcia-Ruiz, F.; Sankaran, S.; Maja, J.M.; Lee, W.S.; Rasmussen, J.; Ehsani, R. Comparison of two aerial imaging platforms for identification of Huanglongbing-infected citrus trees. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2013, 91, 106-115.
16. Baker, B.A.; Warner, T.A.; Conley, J.F.; McNeil, B.E. Does spatial resolution matter? A multi-scale comparison of object-based and pixel-based methods for detecting change associated with gas well drilling operations. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2013, 34, 1633-1651.
17. Torres-Sánchez, J.; López-Granados, F.; De Castro, A.I.; Peña-Barragán, J.M. Configuration and Specifications of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) for Early Site Specific Weed Management. PLoS ONE 2013, 8.
18. Kavvadias, A.; Psomiadis, E.; Chanioti, M.; Gala, E.; Michas, S. Precision Agriculture-Comparison and Evaluation of Innovative Very High Resolution (UAV) and LandSat Data. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Agriculture, Food and Environment (HAICTA 2015), Kavala, Greece, 17-20 September 2015; pp. 376-386.
19. Rivas Casado, M.; Ballesteros Gonzalez, R.; Kriechbaumer, T.; Veal, A. Automated Identification of River Hydromorphological Features Using UAV High Resolution Aerial Imagery. Sensors 2015, 15, 27969-27989.
20. Woodget, A.S.; Carbonneau, P.E.; Visser, F.; Maddock, I.P. Quantifying submerged fluvial topography using hyperspatial resolution UAS imagery and structure from motion photogrammetry. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2015, 40, 47-64.
21. Richards, J.A. Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis; Springer-Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013.
22. Zhang, C.; Kovacs, J.M. The application of small unmanned aerial systems for precision agriculture: A review. Precis. Agric. 2012, 13, 693-712.
23. Ballesteros, R.; Ortega, J.F.; Hernández, D.; Moreno, M.A. Applications of georeferenced high-resolution images obtained with unmanned aerial vehicles. Part I: Description of image acquisition and processing. Precis. Agric. 2014, 15, 579-592.
24. Sankaran, S.; Khot, L.R.; Espinoza, C.Z.; Jarolmasjed, S.; Sathuvalli, V.R.; Vandemark, G.J.; Miklas, P.N.; Carter, A.H.; Pumphrey, M.O.; Knowles, N.R.; et al. Low-altitude, high-resolution aerial imaging systems for row and field crop phenotyping: A review. Eur. J. Agron. 2015, 70, 112-123.
25. Tarolli, P. High-resolution topography for understanding Earth surface processes: Opportunities and challenges. Geomorphology 2014, 216, 295-312.
26. Woodget, A.S.; Visser, F.; Maddock, I.P.; Carbonneau, P.E. The Accuracy and Reliability of Traditional Surface Flow Type Mapping: Is it Time for a New Method of Characterizing Physical River Habitat? River Res. Appl. 2016.
27. Legleiter, C.J.; Marcus, A.; Lawrence, R.L. Effects of Sensor Resolution on Mapping In-Stream Habitats. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2002, 68, 801-807.
28. Anker, Y.; Hershkovitz, Y.; Ben Dor, E.; Gasith, A. Application of aerial digital photography for macrophyte cover and composition survey in small rural streams. River Res. Appl. 2014, 30, 925-937.
29. Carbonneau, P.E.; Lane, S.N.; Bergeron, N.E. Catchment-scale mapping of surface grain size in gravel bed rivers using airborne digital imagery. Water Resour. Res. 2004, 40, 1-11.
30. Vericat, D.; Brasington, J.; Wheaton, J.; Cowie, M. Accuracy assessment of aerial photographs acquired using lighter-than-air blimps: LOW-cost tools for mapping river corridors. River Res. Appl. 2009, 25, 985-1000.
31. Environment Agency. River Habitat Survey in Britain and Ireland; Environment Agency: Bristol, UK, 2003.
32. Foody, G.M. Harshness in image classification accuracy assessment. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2008, 29, 3137-3158.
33. Allouche, O.; Tsoar, A.; Hadmon, R. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: Prevalence, kappa and true skill statistics (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 43, 1223-1232.
34. Pontius, R.G.; Millones, M. Death to Kappa: Birth of quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement for accuracy assessment. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2011, 32, 4407-4429.
35. Congalton, R.G.; Green, K. Assessing the Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Data: Principles and Practices, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009.
36. Fleiss, J.L.; Levin, B.; Paik, M.C. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions;Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics; JohnWiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003.
37. Sokal, R.R.; Rohlf, F.J. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research;W.H. Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
38. Armstrong, J.D.; Kemp, P.S.; Kennedy, G.J.A.; Ladle, M.; Milner, N.J. Habitat requirements of Atlantic salmon and brown trout in rivers and streams. Fish. Res. 2003, 62, 143-170.
39. Kondolf, G.M.;Wolman, M.G. The sizes of salmonid spawning gravels. Water Resour. Res. 1993, 29, 2275-2285.
40. Elliott, S.R.; Coe, T.A.; Helfield, J.M.; Naiman, R.J. Spatial variation in environmental characteristics of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) rivers. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1998, 55, 267-280.
41. Crisp, D.T. The environmental requirements of salmon and trout in fresh water. Freshw. Forum 1993, 3, 176-202.
42. Petr, T. Interactions between Fish and Aquatic Macrophytes in Inland Waters: A Review; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2000.
43. Gurnell, A. Plants as river system engineers. Earth Surf. Processes Landf. 2014, 39, 4-25.
44. Parker, C.; Clifford, N.J.; Thorne, C.R. Automatic delineation of functional river reach boundaries for river research and applicatons. River Res. Appl. 2012, 28, 1708-1725.
45. Mckay, P.; Blain, C.A. An automated approach to extracting river bank locations from aerial imagery using image texture. River Res. Appl. 2014, 30, 1048-1055.
46. Schmitt, R.; Bizzi, S.; Castelletti, A. Characterizing fluvial systems at basin scale by fuzzy signatures of hydromorphological drivers in data scarce environments. Geomorphology 2014, 214, 69-83.
47. Marcus, W.A.; Legleiter, C.J.; Aspinall, R.J.; Boardman, J.W.; Crabtree, R.L. High spatial resolution hyperspectral mapping of in-stream habitats, depths, and woody debris in mountain streams. Geomorphology 2003, 55, 363-380.
48. Roux, C.; Alber, A.; Bertrand, M.; Vaudor, L.; Piégay, H. "FluvialCorridor": A new ArcGIS toolbox package for multiscale riverscape exploration. Geomorphology 2014, 242, 29-37.
49. Leviandier, T.; Alber, A.; Le Ber, F.; Piégay, H. Comparison of statistical algorithms for detecting homogeneous river reaches along a longitudinal continuum. Geomorphology 2012, 138, 130-144.
50. Gurnell, A.M.; Rinaldi, M.; Buijse, A.D.; Brierley, G.; Piégay, H. Hydromorphological frameworks: Emerging trajectories. Aquat. Sci. 2016, 78, 135-138.
51. Civil Aviation Authority CAP1361: CAA Approved Commercial Small Unmanned Aircraft (SUA) Operators. Available online: http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=7078 (accessed on 13 May 2016).
52. Poikane, S.; Zampoukas, N.; Borja, A.; Davies, S.P.; van de Bund, W.; Birk, S. Intercalibration of aquatic ecological assessment methods in the European Union: Lessons learned and way forward. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 44, 237-246.
53. Poikane, S.; Birk, S.; Böhmer, J.; Carvalho, L.; de Hoyos, C.; Gassner, H.; Hellsten, S.; Kelly, M.; Lyche Solheim, A.; Olin, M.; et al. A hitchhiker's guide to European lake ecological assessment and intercalibration. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 52, 533-544.