Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

From experimental plots to experimental landscapes: topography, erosion and deposition in sub‐humid badlands from Structure‐from‐Motion photogrammetry

Smith, Mark William, Vericat, Damià·2015·Earth Surface Processes and Landforms

Abstract

In the last decade advances in surveying technology have opened up the possibility of representing topography and monitoring surface changes over experimental plots (<10 m 2) in high resolution (~10 3 points m‐1). Yet the representativeness of these small plots is limited. With ‘Structure‐from‐Motion’ (SfM) and ‘Multi‐View Stereo’ (MVS) techniques now becoming part of the geomorphologist's toolkit, there is potential to expand further the scale at which we characterise topography and monitor geomorphic change morphometrically. Moving beyond previous plot‐scale work using Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) surveys, this paper validates robustly a number of SfM‐MVS surveys against total station and extensive TLS data at three nested scales: plots (<30 m 2) within a small catchment (4710 m 2) within an eroding marl badland landscape (~1 km 2). SfM surveys from a number of platforms are evaluated based on: (i) topography; (ii) sub‐grid roughness; and (iii) change‐detection capabilities at an annual scale. Oblique ground‐based images can provide a high‐quality surface equivalent to TLS at the plot scale, but become unreliable over larger areas of complex terrain. Degradation of surface quality with range is observed clearly for SfM models derived from aerial imagery. Recently modelled ‘doming’ effects from the use of vertical imagery are proven empirically as a piloted gyrocopter survey at 50m altitude with convergent off‐nadir imagery provided higher quality data than an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) flying at the same height and collecting vertical imagery. For soil erosion monitoring, SfM can provide data comparable with TLS only from small survey ranges (~5 m) and is best limited to survey ranges ~10–20 m. Synthesis of these results with existing validation studies shows a clear degradation of root‐mean squared error (RMSE) with survey range, with a median ratio between RMSE and survey range of 1:639, and highlights the effect of the validation method (e.g. point‐cloud or raster‐based) on the estimated quality. Copyright © 2015 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.3747

Cites

4 of 4 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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 313

Metadata

Authors
Smith, M. W., & Vericat, D.
Venue
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-05-25
Volume
40
Issue
12
Pages
1656-1671
ISSN
  • 0197-9337 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9837
OpenAlex
W1663011803
Cited by
313
References
4
FWCI
51.16
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: From experimental plots to experimental landscapes: topography, erosion and deposition in sub‐humid badlands from Structure‐from‐Motion photogrammetry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/esp.3747
The paper
Smith, M. W., & Vericat, D. (2015). From experimental plots to experimental landscapes: topography, erosion and deposition in sub‐humid badlands from Structure‐from‐Motion photogrammetry. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3747

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.