Cited by 58

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Use of LiDAR Terrain Data in Characterizing Surface Roughness and Microtopography

Brubaker, Kristen M., Myers, Wayne L., Drohan, Patrick J., Miller, Douglas A., Boyer, Elizabeth W.·2013·Applied and Environmental Soil Science

Abstract

The availability of light detection and ranging data (LiDAR) has resulted in a new era of landscape analysis. For example, improvements in LiDAR data resolution may make it possible to accurately model microtopography over a large geographic area; however, data resolution and processing costs versus resulting accuracy may be too costly. We examined two LiDAR datasets of differing resolutions, a low point density (0.714 points/m 2 spacing) 1 m DEM available statewide in Pennsylvania and a high point density (10.28 points/m 2 spacing) 1 m DEM research-grade DEM, and compared the calculated roughness between both resulting DEMs using standard deviation of slope, standard deviation of curvature, a pit fill index, and the difference between a smoothed splined surface and the original DEM. These results were then compared to field-surveyed plots and transects of microterrain. Using both datasets, patterns of roughness were identified, which were associated with different landforms derived from hydrogeomorphic features such as stream channels, gullies, and depressions. Lowland areas tended to have the highest roughness values for all methods, with other areas showing distinctive patterns of roughness values across metrics. However, our results suggest that the high-resolution research-grade LiDAR did not improve roughness modeling in comparison to the coarser statewide LiDAR. We conclude that resolution and initial point density may not be as important as the algorithm and methodology used to generate a LiDAR-derived DEM for roughness modeling purposes.

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 · 10.1155/2013/891534

Cites

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

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?

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. 1997, National hierarchical framework of ecological units
  2. 1995, Progress in Physical Geography, 19, 474, 10.1177/030913339501900403 · DOI
  3. 10.1023/A:1008060508762 · DOI
  4. 1989, The application of a digital relief model to landform analysis in geomorphology
  5. 1993, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 57, 443, 10.2136/sssaj1993.03615995005700020026x · DOI
  6. 10.1155/2011/421904 · DOI
  7. 2012, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 76, 179, 10.2136/sssaj2011.0205 · DOI
  8. 2003, Water Resources Research, 39, TNN21
  9. 10.1016/S0924-2716(98)00009-4 · DOI
  10. 2006, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 72, 1265, 10.14358/PERS.72.11.1265 · DOI
  11. 2010, Remote Sensing Letters, 2, 317
  12. 10.1016/S0169-555X(03)00164-8 · DOI
  13. 10.1029/91WR01585 · DOI
  14. 1984, Ecology, 65, 1406, 10.2307/1939121 · DOI
  15. 10.1046/j.1440-1703.2003.00549.x · DOI
  16. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.621 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 1998, Ecology, 79, 94
  18. 1998, Quantification of soil microtopography and surface roughness
  19. 2000, Agronomie, 20, 131, 10.1051/agro:2000114 · DOI
  20. 2000, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 64, 1749, 10.2136/sssaj2000.6451749x · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.07.006 · DOI
  22. 10.1029/2006JF000644 · DOI
  23. 10.1007/BF00044908 · DOI
  24. 10.1139/X06-169 · DOI
  25. 1984, Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 64, 195, 10.4141/cjss84-021 · DOI
  26. 1989, Earth Surface Processes & Landforms, 14, 197, 10.1002/esp.3290140303 · DOI
  27. 2005, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 19, 120
  28. 1992, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 56, 14, 10.2136/sssaj1992.03615995005600010002x · DOI
  29. 10.1109/TGRS.2010.2053546 · DOI
  30. 2012, Geomorphology, 137, 5, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.06.027 · DOI
  31. 1990, Water Resources Bulletin, 26, 41, 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1990.tb01349.x · DOI
  32. 10.1180/minmag.2008.072.1.7 · DOI
  33. 1991, Hydrological Processes, 5, 81, 10.1002/hyp.3360050107 · DOI
  34. 10.1002/hyp.5895 · DOI
  35. 10.1109/LGRS.2005.848533 · DOI
  36. 1990, Geomorphology, 3, 245, 10.1016/0169-555X(90)90006-C · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Brubaker, K. M., Myers, W. L., Drohan, P. J., Miller, D. A., & Boyer, E. W.
Affiliations
  • Hobart and William Smith Colleges, 318 Stern Hall Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY 14456, USA
  • Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
  • Department of Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
Venue
Applied and Environmental Soil Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013
Volume
2013
Pages
1-13
ISSN
  • 1687-7667
  • 1687-7675
Cited by
58
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