The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Use of LiDAR Terrain Data in Characterizing Surface Roughness and Microtopography
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Surface roughness works together with slope and vegetation density to impact travel rate, as uneven surfaces can cause difficulty when walking.
“Surface roughness is the microtopography of the ground (Brubaker et al. 2013;Richmond, Potter, and Santee 2015) and works together with slope and vegetation density to impact travel rate, as uneven surfaces can cause difficulty when walking.”
From Machine learning estimation of off-trail pedestrian travel rates using LiDAR-derived slope, vegetation, and surface roughness (2026) · cites this paper as Brubaker et al. 2013
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
- 1997, National hierarchical framework of ecological units
- 1995, Progress in Physical Geography, 19, 474, 10.1177/030913339501900403 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1008060508762 · DOI
- 1989, The application of a digital relief model to landform analysis in geomorphology
- 1993, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 57, 443, 10.2136/sssaj1993.03615995005700020026x · DOI
- 10.1155/2011/421904 · DOI
- 2012, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 76, 179, 10.2136/sssaj2011.0205 · DOI
- 2003, Water Resources Research, 39, TNN21
- 10.1016/S0924-2716(98)00009-4 · DOI
- 2006, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 72, 1265, 10.14358/PERS.72.11.1265 · DOI
- 2010, Remote Sensing Letters, 2, 317
- 10.1016/S0169-555X(03)00164-8 · DOI
- 10.1029/91WR01585 · DOI
- 1984, Ecology, 65, 1406, 10.2307/1939121 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1440-1703.2003.00549.x · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.621 · DOI · Paper page
- 1998, Ecology, 79, 94
- 1998, Quantification of soil microtopography and surface roughness
- 2000, Agronomie, 20, 131, 10.1051/agro:2000114 · DOI
- 2000, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 64, 1749, 10.2136/sssaj2000.6451749x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.07.006 · DOI
- 10.1029/2006JF000644 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00044908 · DOI
- 10.1139/X06-169 · DOI
- 1984, Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 64, 195, 10.4141/cjss84-021 · DOI
- 1989, Earth Surface Processes & Landforms, 14, 197, 10.1002/esp.3290140303 · DOI
- 2005, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 19, 120
- 1992, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 56, 14, 10.2136/sssaj1992.03615995005600010002x · DOI
- 10.1109/TGRS.2010.2053546 · DOI
- 2012, Geomorphology, 137, 5, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.06.027 · DOI
- 1990, Water Resources Bulletin, 26, 41, 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1990.tb01349.x · DOI
- 10.1180/minmag.2008.072.1.7 · DOI
- 1991, Hydrological Processes, 5, 81, 10.1002/hyp.3360050107 · DOI
- 10.1002/hyp.5895 · DOI
- 10.1109/LGRS.2005.848533 · DOI
- 1990, Geomorphology, 3, 245, 10.1016/0169-555X(90)90006-C · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Campbell, M. J., Cutler, S. L., & Dennison, P. E. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-71359-6 · Cited by 7
Cutler, S. L., Campbell, M. J., Brewer, S. C., & Dennison, P. E. (2026) · GIScience & Remote Sensing · doi:10.1080/15481603.2026.2626632
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
- ORCID
- Miller, Douglas A.
- 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