Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,160

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Accounting for uncertainty in DEMs from repeat topographic surveys: improved sediment budgets

Wheaton, Joseph M., Brasington, James, Darby, Stephen E., Sear, David A.·2010·Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
DOI 10.1002/esp.1886
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Repeat topographic surveys are increasingly becoming more affordable, and possible at higher spatial resolutions and over greater spatial extents. Digital elevation models (DEMs) built from such surveys can be used to produce DEM of Difference (DoD) maps and estimate the net change in storage terms for morphological sediment budgets. While these products are extremely useful for monitoring and geomorphic interpretation, data and model uncertainties render them prone to misinterpretation. Two new methods are presented, which allow for more robust and spatially variable estimation of DEM uncertainties and propagate these forward to evaluate the consequences for estimates of geomorphic change. The first relies on a fuzzy inference system to estimate the spatial variability of elevation uncertainty in individual DEMs while the second approach modifies this estimate on the basis of the spatial coherence of erosion and deposition units. Both techniques allow for probabilistic representation of uncertainty on a cell‐by‐cell basis and thresholding of the sediment budget at a user‐specified confidence interval. The application of these new techniques is illustrated with 5 years of high resolution survey data from a 1 km long braided reach of the River Feshie in the Highlands of Scotland. The reach was found to be consistently degradational, with between 570 and 1970 m 3 of net erosion per annum, despite the fact that spatially, deposition covered more surface area than erosion. In the two wetter periods with extensive braid‐plain inundation, the uncertainty analysis thresholded at a 95% confidence interval resulted in a larger percentage (57% for 2004–2005 and 59% for 2006–2007) of volumetric change being excluded from the budget than the drier years (24% for 2003–2004 and 31% for 2005–2006). For these data, the new uncertainty analysis is generally more conservative volumetrically than a standard spatially‐uniform minimum level of detection analysis, but also produces more plausible and physically meaningful results. The tools are packaged in a wizard‐driven Matlab software application available for download with this paper, and can be calibrated and extended for application to any topographic point cloud (x,y,z). Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/esp.1886

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 1,160

Metadata

Authors
Wheaton, J. M., Brasington, J., Darby, S. E., & Sear, D. A.
Venue
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-12-10
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
136-156
ISSN
  • 0197-9337 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9837
DOI
10.1002/esp.1886
OpenAlex
W1974173367
Cited by
1,160
References
32
FWCI
16.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.