CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 52

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Beyond Vertical Point Accuracy: Assessing Inter-pixel Consistency in 30 m Global DEMs for the Arid Central Andes

Purinton, Benjamin, Bookhagen, Bodo·2021·Frontiers in Earth Science
DOI 10.3389/feart.2021.758606
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Quantitative geomorphic research depends on accurate topographic data often collected via remote sensing. Lidar, and photogrammetric methods like structure-from-motion, provide the highest quality data for generating digital elevation models (DEMs). Unfortunately, these data are restricted to relatively small areas, and may be expensive or time-consuming to collect. Global and near-global DEMs with 1 arcsec (∼30 m) ground sampling from spaceborne radar and optical sensors offer an alternative gridded, continuous surface at the cost of resolution and accuracy. Accuracy is typically defined with respect to external datasets, often, but not always, in the form of point or profile measurements from sources like differential Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), spaceborne lidar (e.g., ICESat), and other geodetic measurements. Vertical point or profile accuracy metrics can miss the pixel-to-pixel variability (sometimes called DEM noise) that is unrelated to true topographic signal, but rather sensor-, orbital-, and/or processing-related artifacts. This is most concerning in selecting a DEM for geomorphic analysis, as this variability can affect derivatives of elevation (e.g., slope and curvature) and impact flow routing. We use (near) global DEMs at 1 arcsec resolution (SRTM, ASTER, ALOS, TanDEM-X, and the recently released Copernicus) and develop new internal accuracy metrics to assess inter-pixel variability without reference data. Our study area is in the arid, steep Central Andes, and is nearly vegetation-free, creating ideal conditions for remote sensing of the bare-earth surface. We use a novel hillshade-filtering approach to detrend long-wavelength topographic signals and accentuate short-wavelength variability. Fourier transformations of the spatial signal to the frequency domain allows us to quantify: 1) artifacts in the un-projected 1 arcsec DEMs at wavelengths greater than the Nyquist (twice the nominal resolution, so > 2 arcsec); and 2) the relative variance of adjacent pixels in DEMs resampled to 30-m resolution (UTM projected). We translate results into their impact on hillslope and channel slope calculations, and we highlight the quality of the five DEMs. We find that the Copernicus DEM, which is based on a carefully edited commercial version of the TanDEM-X, provides the highest quality landscape representation, and should become the preferred DEM for topographic analysis in areas without sufficient coverage of higher-quality local DEMs.

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 · 10.3389/feart.2021.758606

Cites

2 of 2 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

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 [34]

    Section 7.5 (page not provided) finds that Copernicus DEM has the highest inter-pixel consistency and most realistic topography among the DEMs compared in the arid Central Andes. The Conclusion likewise reports low pixel-to-pixel noise. These findings support its precision in that setting, but not the unqualified claim that it is the most precise freely available global DEM everywhere or by every accuracy measure. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 103

  1. Abrams, 2019, ASTER GDEM V3 (ASTER Global DEM) User Guide Version 1
  2. Abrams, 2020, Aster Global Digital Elevation Model (Gdem) and Aster Global Water Body Dataset (Astwbd), Remote Sensing, 12, 1156, 10.3390/rs12071156 · DOI
  3. Allmendinger, 1997, The Evolution of the Altiplano-Puna Plateau of the Central Andes, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 25, 139, 10.1146/annurev.earth.25.1.139 · DOI
  4. Alonso, 1991, Giant Evaporite Belts of the Neogene central andes, Geol., 19, 401, 10.1130/0091-7613(1991)019<0401:gebotn>2.3.co;2 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Arrell, 2008, Spectral Filtering as a Method of Visualising and Removing Striped Artefacts in Digital Elevation Data, Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 33, 943, 10.1002/esp.1597 · DOI
  6. Aster, 2009, ASTER Global DEM Validation Summary Report
  7. Baade, 2016, TanDEM-x IDEM Precision and Accuracy Assessment Based on a Large Assembly of Differential GNSS Measurements in Kruger national park, south africa, ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sensing, 119, 496, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2016.05.005 · DOI
  8. Bagnardi, 2016, High-resolution Digital Elevation Model from Tri-stereo Pleiades-1 Satellite Imagery for Lava Flow Volume Estimates at Fogo Volcano, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 6267, 10.1002/2016gl069457 · DOI
  9. Becek, 2014, Assessing Global Digital Elevation Models Using the Runway Method: The Advanced Spaceborne thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer versus the Shuttle Radar Topography mission Case, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, 52, 4823, 10.1109/TGRS.2013.2285187 · DOI
  10. Becek, 2008, Investigating Error Structure of Shuttle Radar Topography mission Elevation Data Product, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, 1, 10.1029/2008GL034592 · DOI
  11. Becek, 2016, Evaluation of Vertical Accuracy of the WorldDEM Using the Runway Method, Remote Sensing, 8, 934, 10.3390/rs8110934 · DOI
  12. Beechie, 1997, Relationships between Channel Characteristics, Woody Debris, and Fish Habitat in Northwestern washington Streams, Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 126, 217, 10.1577/1548-8659(1997)126<0217:rbccwd>2.3.co;2 · DOI
  13. Bessette-Kirton, 2018, Using Stereo Satellite Imagery to Account for Ablation, Entrainment, and Compaction in Volume Calculations for Rock Avalanches on Glaciers: Application to the 2016 Lamplugh Rock Avalanche in Glacier bay national park, alaska, J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf., 123, 622, 10.1002/2017JF004512 · DOI
  14. Beyer, 2018, The Ames Stereo Pipeline: NASA's Open Source Software for Deriving and Processing Terrain Data, Earth Space Sci., 5, 537, 10.1029/2018EA000409 · DOI
  15. Bisson, 2017, Valley Segments, Stream Reaches, and Channel Units, 21, 10.1016/B978-0-12-416558-8.00002-0 · DOI
  16. Bookhagen, 2001, Hydrological Modelling of a Pleistocene Landslide-Dammed lake in the santa maria basin, NW argentina, Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol., 169, 113, 10.1016/s0031-0182(01)00221-8 · DOI
  17. Bookhagen, 2008, Orographic Barriers, High-Resolution TRMM Rainfall, and Relief Variations along the Eastern andes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, 1, 10.1029/2007gl032011 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Bookhagen, 2012, Spatiotemporal Trends in Erosion Rates across a Pronounced Rainfall Gradient: Examples from the Southern central andes, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 97, 10.1016/j.epsl.2012.02.005 · DOI
  19. Booth, 2009, Automated Landslide Mapping Using Spectral Analysis and High-Resolution Topographic Data: Puget Sound Lowlands, washington, and portland hills, oregon, Geomorphology, 109, 132, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.02.027 · DOI
  20. Boulton, 2018, Which Dem Is Best for Analyzing Fluvial Landscape Development in Mountainous Terrains?, Geomorphology, 310, 168, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2018.03.002 · DOI
  21. Buckley, 2020, NASADEM User Guide Version 1
  22. Carabajal, 2020, Icesat-2 Altimetry as Geodetic Control, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci., 1299, 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B3-2020-1299-2020 · DOI
  23. Carabajal, 2006, Srtm C-Band and Icesat Laser Altimetry Elevation Comparisons as a Function of Tree Cover and Relief, Photogramm Eng. Remote Sensing, 72, 287, 10.14358/pers.72.3.287 · DOI
  24. Clubb, 2019, Clustering River Profiles to Classify Geomorphic Domains, J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf., 124, 1417, 10.1029/2019JF005025 · DOI
  25. Clubb, 2014, Objective Extraction of Channel Heads from High-Resolution Topographic Data, Water Resour. Res., 50, 4283, 10.1002/2013wr015167 · DOI
  26. Cook, 2017, An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Low-Cost Uavs and Structure from Motion for Geomorphic Change Detection, Geomorphology, 278, 195, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.11.009 · DOI
  27. Crippen, 2016, Nasadem Global Elevation Model: Methods and Progress, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci., 125, 10.5194/isprsarchives-xli-b4-125-2016 · DOI
  28. Eltner, 2016, Image-based Surface Reconstruction in Geomorphometry - Merits, Limits and Developments, Earth Surf. Dynam., 4, 359, 10.5194/esurf-4-359-2016 · DOI
  29. Eorc, 2021, ALOS World 3D-30m (AW3D30)
  30. Fahrland, 2020, Copernicus Digital Elevation Model Validation Report
  31. Farr, 2007, The Shuttle Radar Topography mission, Rev. Geophys., 45, 1, 10.1029/2005rg000183 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Gailleton, 2019, A Segmentation Approach for the Reproducible Extraction and Quantification of Knickpoints from River Long Profiles, Earth Surf. Dynam., 7, 211, 10.5194/esurf-7-211-2019 · DOI
  33. Gallant, 2009, Enhancing the Srtm Data for australia, Proc. Geomorphometry, 31, 149
  34. 2021, GDAL/OGR Geospatial Data Abstraction Software Library
  35. González, 2020, A Fully Automatic Algorithm for Editing the Tandem-X Global Dem, Remote Sensing, 12, 3961, 10.3390/rs12233961 · DOI
  36. Grieve, 2016, How Does Grid-Resolution Modulate the Topographic Expression of Geomorphic Processes?, Earth Surf. Dynam., 4, 627, 10.5194/esurf-4-627-2016 · DOI
  37. Grohmann, 2018, Evaluation of Tandem-X Dems on Selected Brazilian Sites: Comparison with Srtm, Aster Gdem and Alos Aw3d30, Remote Sensing Environ., 212, 121, 10.1016/j.rse.2018.04.043 · DOI
  38. Guth, 2021, LiDAR point Cloud and ICESat‐2 Evaluation of 1 Second Global Digital Elevation Models: Copernicus Wins, Trans. GIS, 406, 1, 10.1111/tgis.12825 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Hain, 2011, Neogene to Quaternary Broken Foreland Formation and Sedimentation Dynamics in the andes of Nw argentina (25°s), Tectonics, 30, 2, 10.1029/2010tc002703 · DOI
  40. Haselton, 2002, Average Pleistocene Climatic Patterns in the Southern central andes: Controls on Mountain Glaciation and Paleoclimate Implications, J. Geology., 110, 211, 10.1086/338414 · DOI
  41. Hawker, 2018, Perspectives on Digital Elevation Model (Dem) Simulation for Flood Modeling in the Absence of a High-Accuracy Open Access Global Dem, Front. Earth Sci., 6, 233, 10.3389/feart.2018.00233 · DOI
  42. Hofton, 2006, Validation of SRTM Elevations over Vegetated and Non-vegetated Terrain Using Medium Footprint Lidar, Photogramm Eng. Remote Sensing, 72, 279, 10.14358/pers.72.3.279 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Hooshyar, 2021, Spectral Signature of Landscape Channelization, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL091015, 10.1029/2020GL091015 · DOI
  44. Hooshyar, 2016, Valley and Channel Networks Extraction Based on Local Topographic Curvature Andk-Means Clustering of Contours, Water Resour. Res., 52, 8081, 10.1002/2015wr018479 · DOI
  45. Horn, 1981, Hill Shading and the Reflectance Map, Proc. IEEE, 69, 14, 10.1109/PROC.1981.11918 · DOI
  46. Huete, 1994, Development of Vegetation and Soil Indices for Modis-Eos, Remote Sensing Environ., 49, 224, 10.1016/0034-4257(94)90018-3 · DOI
  47. Hurst, 2012, Using Hilltop Curvature to Derive the Spatial Distribution of Erosion Rates, J. Geophys. Res., 117, a, 10.1029/2011JF002057 · DOI
  48. Kääb, 2002, Monitoring High-Mountain Terrain Deformation from Repeated Air- and Spaceborne Optical Data: Examples Using Digital Aerial Imagery and Aster Data, ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sensing, 57, 39, 10.1016/S0924-2716(02)00114-4 · DOI
  49. Kramm, 2019, A Relief Dependent Evaluation of Digital Elevation Models on Different Scales for Northern chile, Ijgi, 8, 430, 10.3390/ijgi8100430 · DOI
  50. Krieger, 2013, Tandem-x: A Radar Interferometer with Two Formation-Flying Satellites, Acta Astronautica, 89, 83, 10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.03.008 · DOI
  51. Leister-Taylor, 2020, Copernicus Digital Elevation Model Product Handbook
  52. Liu, 2021, Bare-earth Dem Generation in Urban Areas for Flood Inundation Simulation Using Global Digital Elevation Models, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR028516, 10.1029/2020wr028516 · DOI
  53. Luna, 2018, Glacial Chronology and Production Rate Cross-Calibration of Five Cosmogenic Nuclide and mineral Systems from the Southern central Andean Plateau, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 500, 242, 10.1016/j.epsl.2018.07.034 · DOI
  54. Milodowski, 2015, Topographic Roughness as a Signature of the Emergence of Bedrock in Eroding Landscapes, Earth Surf. Dynam., 3, 483, 10.5194/esurf-3-483-2015 · DOI
  55. Mudd, 2014, A Statistical Framework to Quantify Spatial Variation in Channel Gradients Using the Integral Method of Channel Profile Analysis, J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf., 119, 138, 10.1002/2013JF002981 · DOI
  56. Mudd, 2019, Lsdtopotools2
  57. Mudd, 2020, Topographic Data from Satellites, 91
  58. Neely, 2017, An Automated Knickzone Selection Algorithm (KZ‐Picker) to Analyze Transient Landscapes: Calibration and Validation, J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf., 122, 1236, 10.1002/2017jf004250 · DOI
  59. Neuenschwander, 2019, The Atl08 Land and Vegetation Product for the Icesat-2 mission, Remote Sensing Environ., 221, 247, 10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.005 · DOI
  60. Nuth, 2011, Co-registration and Bias Corrections of Satellite Elevation Data Sets for Quantifying Glacier Thickness Change, The Cryosphere, 5, 271, 10.5194/tc-5-271-2011 · DOI
  61. O’Callaghan, 1984, The Extraction of Drainage Networks from Digital Elevation Data, Comp. Vis. Graphics, Image Process., 28, 323, 10.1016/S0734-189X(84)80011-0 · DOI
  62. Olen, 2020, Applications of Sar Interferometric Coherence Time Series: Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Geomorphic Transitions in the South-central andes, J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf., 125, e2019JF005141, 10.1029/2019JF005141 · DOI
  63. Ouimet, 2009, Beyond Threshold Hillslopes: Channel Adjustment to Base-Level Fall in Tectonically Active Mountain Ranges, Geology, 37, 579, 10.1130/G30013A.1 · DOI
  64. Passalacqua, 2015, Analyzing High Resolution Topography for Advancing the Understanding of Mass and Energy Transfer through Landscapes: A Review, Earth-Science Rev., 148, 174, 10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.05.012 · DOI
  65. Passalacqua, Testing Space-Scale Methodologies for Automatic Geomorphic Feature Extraction from Lidar in a Complex Mountainous Landscape, Water Resour. Res., 46, n/a, 10.1029/2009WR008812 · DOI
  66. Passalacqua, A Geometric Framework for Channel Network Extraction from Lidar: Nonlinear Diffusion and Geodesic Paths, J. Geophys. Res., 115, 1, 10.1029/2009jf001254 · DOI
  67. Perron, 2008, Spectral Signatures of Characteristic Spatial Scales and Nonfractal Structure in Landscapes, J. Geophys. Res., 113, 1, 10.1029/2007JF000866 · DOI
  68. Perron, 2013, An Integral Approach to Bedrock River Profile Analysis, Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 38, 570, 10.1002/esp.3302 · DOI
  69. Pingel, 2020, Late Cenozoic Topographic Evolution of the Eastern Cordillera and Puna Plateau Margin in the Southern central andes (Nw argentina), Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 535, 116112, 10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116112 · DOI
  70. Pipaud, 2015, Evaluation of TanDEM-X Elevation Data for Geomorphological Mapping and Interpretation in High Mountain Environments - A Case Study from SE Tibet, China, Geomorphology, 246, 232, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.06.025 · DOI
  71. Polidori, 2020, Digital Elevation Model Quality Assessment Methods: A Critical Review, Remote Sensing, 12, 3522, 10.3390/rs12213522 · DOI
  72. Purinton, 2018, Measuring Decadal Vertical Land-Level Changes from SRTM-C (2000) and TanDEM-X (∼ 2015) in the South-central Andes, Earth Surf. Dynam., 6, 971, 10.5194/esurf-6-971-2018 · DOI
  73. Purinton, 2020, Multiband (X, C, L) Radar Amplitude Analysis for a Mixed Sand- and Gravel-Bed River in the Eastern central andes, Remote Sensing Environ., 246, 111799, 10.1016/j.rse.2020.111799 · DOI
  74. Purinton, 2017, Validation of Digital Elevation Models (Dems) and Comparison of Geomorphic Metrics on the Southern central Andean Plateau, Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 211, 10.5194/esurf-5-211-2017 · DOI
  75. Rexer, 2014, Comparison of Free High Resolution Digital Elevation Data Sets (ASTER GDEM2, SRTM v2.1/v4.1) and Validation against Accurate Heights from the Australian National Gravity Database, Aust. J. Earth Sci., 61, 213, 10.1080/08120099.2014.884983 · DOI · Paper page
  76. Rheinwalt, 2019, A Network‐Based Flow Accumulation Algorithm for Point Clouds: Facet‐Flow Networks (FFNs), J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf., 124, 2013, 10.1029/2018jf004827 · DOI
  77. Rignot, 2001, Penetration Depth of Interferometric Synthetic-Aperture Radar Signals in Snow and Ice, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 3501, 10.1029/2000GL012484 · DOI
  78. Rizzoli, 2017, Generation and Performance Assessment of the Global Tandem-X Digital Elevation Model, ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sensing, 132, 119, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2017.08.008 · DOI
  79. Rodríguez, 2006, A Global Assessment of the SRTM Performance, Photogramm Eng. Remote Sensing, 72, 249, 10.14358/pers.72.3.249 · DOI · Paper page
  80. Roering, 2013, ‘You Are HERE’: Connecting the Dots with Airborne Lidar for Geomorphic Fieldwork, Geomorphology, 200, 172, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.04.009 · DOI
  81. Roering, 2010, Evidence for Biotic Controls on Topography and Soil Production, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 298, 183, 10.1016/j.epsl.2010.07.040 · DOI
  82. Rohrmann, 2014, Can Stable Isotopes Ride Out the Storms? the Role of Convection for Water Isotopes in Models, Records, and Paleoaltimetry Studies in the central andes, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 407, 187, 10.1016/j.epsl.2014.09.021 · DOI
  83. Rossi, 2016, Temporal Monitoring of Subglacial Volcanoes with TanDEM-X - Application to the 2014-2015 Eruption within the Bárðarbunga Volcanic System, Iceland, Remote Sensing Environ., 181, 186, 10.1016/j.rse.2016.04.003 · DOI
  84. Schumann, 2018, The Need for a High-Accuracy, Open-Access Global Dem, Front. Earth Sci., 6, 225, 10.3389/feart.2018.00225 · DOI
  85. Schwanghart, 2017, Bumps in River Profiles: Uncertainty Assessment and Smoothing Using Quantile Regression Techniques, Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 821, 10.5194/esurf-5-821-2017 · DOI
  86. Schwanghart, 2014, Short Communication: TopoToolbox 2 - MATLAB-Based Software for Topographic Analysis and Modeling in Earth Surface Sciences, Earth Surf. Dynam., 2, 1, 10.5194/esurf-2-1-2014 · DOI
  87. Shean, 2020, A Systematic, Regional Assessment of High Mountain Asia Glacier Mass Balance, Front. Earth Sci., 7, 363, 10.3389/feart.2019.00363 · DOI
  88. Smith, 2015, Structure from Motion Photogrammetry in Physical Geography, Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ., 40, 247, 10.1177/0309133315615805 · DOI
  89. Smith, 2019, Determining the Optimal Grid Resolution for Topographic Analysis on an Airborne Lidar Dataset, Earth Surf. Dynam., 7, 475, 10.5194/esurf-7-475-2019 · DOI
  90. Sofia, 2020, Combining Geomorphometry, Feature Extraction Techniques and Earth-Surface Processes Research: The Way Forward, Geomorphology, 355, 107055, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107055 · DOI
  91. Strecker, 2007, Tectonics and Climate of the Southern central andes, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 35, 747, 10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140158 · DOI
  92. Struble, 2021, Characteristic Scales of Drainage Reorganization in Cascadia, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL091413, 10.1029/2020GL091413 · DOI
  93. Tachikawa, 2011, ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model Version 2-summary of Validation Results
  94. Tadono, 2014, Precise Global DEM Generation by ALOS PRISM, ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci., 71, 10.5194/isprsannals-ii-4-71-2014 · DOI
  95. Takaku, 2014, Generation of High Resolution Global Dsm from Alos Prism, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci., 243, 10.5194/isprsarchives-xl-4-243-2014 · DOI · Paper page
  96. Tarboton, 2005, Terrain Analysis Using Digital Elevation Models (Taudem)
  97. Wapenhans, 2021, Scale-dependent Contributors to River Profile Geometry, J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf., 126, e2020JF005879, 10.1029/2020jf005879 · DOI
  98. Wessel, 2018, Accuracy Assessment of the Global Tandem-X Digital Elevation Model with Gps Data, ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sensing, 139, 1, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.02.017 · DOI · Paper page
  99. Wessel, 2016, Tandem-x Ground Segment–Dem Products Specification Document
  100. Wobus, 2006, Tectonics from Topography: Procedures, Promise, and Pitfalls, 55, 10.1130/2006.2398(04) · DOI
  101. Yamazaki, 2017, A High-Accuracy Map of Global Terrain Elevations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 5844, 10.1002/2017GL072874 · DOI · Paper page
  102. Zevenbergen, 1987, Quantitative Analysis of Land Surface Topography, Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 12, 47, 10.1002/esp.3290120107 · DOI
  103. Zink, 2021, Tandem-x: 10 Years of Formation Flying Bistatic Sar Interferometry, 10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3062286 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Purinton, B., & Bookhagen, B.
Venue
Frontiers in Earth Science
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2021-10-08
Volume
9
ISSN
2296-6463
DOI
10.3389/feart.2021.758606
Cited by
52
References
2
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
  • Deutsches Zentrum für Luft-und Raumfahrt (DEM_CALVAL1028)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (BO 2933/3-1 IRTG-StRATEGy (IGK 2018))
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (LIDAR NEXUS)

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