Cited by 141

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

LiDAR point cloud and ICESat‐2 evaluation of 1 second global digital elevation models: Copernicus wins

Guth, Peter L., Geoffroy, Tera M.·2021·Transactions in GIS

Abstract

Widely available LiDAR point clouds show that the Copernicus digital elevation model (DEM) consistently outperforms four other 1ʺ (arc second) global DEMs (ALOS, ASTER, NASA, and SRTM). Typical airborne LiDARs have 2–20 returns per square meter, or 1,500–10,000 points corresponding to each elevation posting in a 1″ DEM. The LiDAR point cloud approximates the 3D earth surface observed by visible, near‐infrared, and radar sensors used to create freely available global DEMs, and allows estimation of the canopy penetration by the sensor. Canopy is broadly defined as the range of elevations within the 1″ cell including effects from vegetation, slope, and human‐made features. In open terrain, all five DEMs approximate the ground surface. With significant canopy, the Copernicus DEM elevations cluster tightly near the center of the canopy, while the other DEMs are spread throughout and even outside the canopy defined by LiDAR. The superiority of the Copernicus DEM is evident in tests against both LiDAR and ICESat‐2 data, in all eight (high‐relief) test areas, in different vegetation types, and on both gentle and steep slopes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/tgis.12825

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • COPDEM is the most precise freely available global DEM.

    “Recent studies have demonstrated that COPDEM is the most precise freely available global DEM [31][32][33][34], motivating its use in this study.”

    From ANADEM: A Digital Terrain Model for South America (2024) · cites this paper as [33]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Abrams M., 2010, The ASTER global DEM, Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 76, 344
  2. AIRBUS, 2020, Copernicus DEM: Copernicus digital elevation model product handbook
  3. 10.1038/s41597-020-0479-6 · DOI
  4. 10.3390/rs12061044 · DOI
  5. Buchhorn M., 2020, Copernicus Global Land Service: Land Cover 100m. Collection 3: Epoch 2019: Globe
  6. 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B3-2020-1299-2020 · DOI
  7. 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLI-B4-125-2016 · DOI
  8. 10.1007/BFb0009718 · DOI
  9. 10.1029/2005RG000183 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1002/joc.5086 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.3389/feart.2018.00230 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.rse.2018.04.043 · DOI
  13. 10.14358/PERS.72.3.269 · DOI
  14. Guth P. L., 2010, Proceedings of Special Joint Symposium of ISPRS Technical Commission IV & AutoCarto in conjunction with the ASPRS/CaGIS 2010 Fall Specialty Conference, 1
  15. Hengl T., 2011, Proceedings of the 2011 Geomorphometry Conference, 45
  16. 10.3390/rs12162630 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103414 · DOI
  18. NASA JPL, 2020, NASADEM merged DEM global 1 arc second V001
  19. 10.1029/2011JB008916 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.5194/esurf-5-211-2017 · DOI
  21. 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLI-B4-157-2016 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Guth, P. L., & Geoffroy, T. M.
Affiliations
Department of Oceanography United States Naval Academy Annapolis USA
Venue
Transactions in GIS
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-08-11
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
2245-2261
ISSN
  • 1361-1682
  • 1467-9671
Cited by
141
References
0
Language
en

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