Considerations for Achieving Cross-Platform Point Cloud Data Fusion across Different Dryland Ecosystem Structural States

Remotely sensing recent growth, herbivory, or disturbance of herbaceous and woody vegetation in dryland ecosystems requires high spatial resolution and multi-temporal depth. Three dimensional (3D) remote sensing technologies like lidar, and techniques like structure from motion (SfM) photogrammetry, each have strengths and weaknesses at detecting vegetation volume and extent, given the instrument's ground sample distance and ease of acquisition. Yet, a combination of platforms and techniques might provide solutions that overcome the weakness of a single platform. To explore the potential for combining platforms, we compared detection bias amongst two 3D remote sensing techniques (lidar and SfM) using three different platforms [ground-based, small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS), and manned aircraft]. We found aerial lidar to be more accurate for characterizing the bare earth (ground) in dense herbaceous vegetation than either terrestrial lidar or aerial SfM photogrammetry. Conversely, the manned aerial lidar did not detect grass and fine woody vegetation while the terrestrial lidar and high resolution near-distance (ground and sUAS) SfM photogrammetry detected these and were accurate. UAS SfM photogrammetry at lower spatial resolution under-estimated maximum heights in grass and shrubs. UAS and handheld SfM photogrammetry in near-distance high resolution collections had similar accuracy to terrestrial lidar for vegetation, but difficulty at measuring bare earth elevation beneath dense herbaceous cover. Combining point cloud data and derivatives (i.e., meshes and rasters) from two or more platforms allowed for more accurate measurement of herbaceous and woody vegetation (height and canopy cover) than any single technique alone. Availability and costs of manned aircraft lidar collection preclude high frequency repeatability but this is less limiting for terrestrial lidar, sUAS and handheld SfM. The post-processing of SfM photogrammetry data became the limiting factor at larger spatial scale and temporal repetition. Despite the utility of sUAS and handheld SfM for monitoring vegetation phenology and structure, their spatial extents are small relative to manned aircraft.

[1]  I. Woodhouse,et al.  Structure from Motion (SfM) Photogrammetry with Drone Data: A Low Cost Method for Monitoring Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Forests in Developing Countries , 2017 .

[2]  Esteban Muldavin,et al.  Spatial heterogeneity in Chihuahuan Desert vegetation: implications for sampling methods in semi-arid ecosystems , 2001 .

[3]  R. Scott Using watershed water balance to evaluate the accuracy of eddy covariance evaporation measurements for three semiarid ecosystems , 2010 .

[4]  Vegetation data, Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed, Arizona, United States , 2008 .

[5]  D. Lague,et al.  Accurate 3D comparison of complex topography with terrestrial laser scanner: Application to the Rangitikei canyon (N-Z) , 2013, 1302.1183.

[6]  D. Butler Many eyes on Earth , 2014, Nature.

[7]  Erle C. Ellis,et al.  Remote Sensing of Vegetation Structure Using Computer Vision , 2010, Remote. Sens..

[8]  W. R. Osterkamp,et al.  Geology, Soils, and Geomorphology of the Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed, Tombstone, Arizona , 2008 .

[9]  William Eugene Carter,et al.  Geodetic imaging with airborne LiDAR: the Earth's surface revealed , 2013, Reports on progress in physics. Physical Society.

[10]  Wuming Zhang,et al.  An Easy-to-Use Airborne LiDAR Data Filtering Method Based on Cloth Simulation , 2016, Remote. Sens..

[11]  Mark W. Smith,et al.  Structure from Motion in the Geosciences , 2016 .

[12]  S. Robson,et al.  3‐D uncertainty‐based topographic change detection with structure‐from‐motion photogrammetry: precision maps for ground control and directly georeferenced surveys , 2017 .

[13]  K. McGwire,et al.  Assessing the performance of structure‐from‐motion photogrammetry and terrestrial LiDAR for reconstructing soil surface microtopography of naturally vegetated plots , 2016 .

[14]  Andrew M. Cunliffe,et al.  Ultra-fine grain landscape-scale quantification of dryland vegetation structure with drone-acquired structure-from-motion photogrammetry , 2016 .

[15]  A. Lucieer,et al.  Using a micro-UAV for ultra-high resolution multi-sensor observations of Antarctic moss beds , 2012 .

[16]  S. Robson,et al.  Mitigating systematic error in topographic models derived from UAV and ground‐based image networks , 2014 .

[17]  Dirk Merkel,et al.  Docker: lightweight Linux containers for consistent development and deployment , 2014 .

[18]  Brendan F. Kohrn,et al.  Small unmanned aerial vehicles (micro-UAVs, drones) in plant ecology , 2016, Applications in Plant Sciences.

[19]  M. Walport,et al.  Science as a public enterprise: the case for open data , 2011, The Lancet.

[20]  M. S. Moran,et al.  Long‐term meteorological and soil hydrology database, Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed, Arizona, United States , 2008 .

[21]  R. Macarthur The Problem of Pattern and Scale in Ecology: The Robert H. MacArthur Award Lecture , 2005 .

[22]  Hans Karl Heidemann,et al.  Lidar base specification , 2012 .

[23]  Carl Boettiger,et al.  An introduction to Docker for reproducible research , 2014, OPSR.

[24]  K. Anderson,et al.  What does airborne LiDAR really measure in upland ecosystems? , 2015 .

[25]  S. Levin The problem of pattern and scale in ecology , 1992 .

[26]  James Mason,et al.  Commissioning the World’s Largest Satellite Constellation , 2017 .

[27]  Terje Gobakken,et al.  Influence of Plot Size on Efficiency of Biomass Estimates in Inventories of Dry Tropical Forests Assisted by Photogrammetric Data from an Unmanned Aircraft System , 2017, Remote. Sens..

[28]  J. Pelletier,et al.  The influence of Holocene vegetation changes on topography and erosion rates: a case study at Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed, Arizona , 2016 .

[29]  R. Paine,et al.  Ecological Determinism in the Competition for Space: The Robert H. MacArthur Award Lecture , 1984 .

[30]  T. Sankey,et al.  UAV hyperspectral and lidar data and their fusion for arid and semi‐arid land vegetation monitoring , 2018 .

[31]  M. McClaran,et al.  Recent drought phase in a 73-year record at two spatial scales: Implications for livestock production on rangelands in the Southwestern United States , 2014 .

[32]  M. Westoby,et al.  ‘Structure-from-Motion’ photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications , 2012 .

[33]  Bruce T. Milne,et al.  Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern , 1989, Landscape Ecology.

[34]  Ian T. Foster,et al.  Jetstream: a self-provisioned, scalable science and engineering cloud environment , 2015, XSEDE.

[35]  Mark A. Fonstad,et al.  Topographic structure from motion: a new development in photogrammetric measurement , 2013 .

[36]  Kenneth G. Renard,et al.  Preface to special section on Fifty Years of Research and Data Collection: U.S. Department of Agriculture Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed , 2008 .

[37]  Matthew F. McCabe,et al.  High-resolution sensing for precision agriculture: from Earth-observing satellites to unmanned aerial vehicles , 2016, Remote Sensing.

[38]  R. Scott,et al.  Partitioning of evapotranspiration and its relation to carbon dioxide exchange in a Chihuahuan Desert shrubland , 2006 .

[39]  Steve W. Lyon,et al.  Laser vision: lidar as a transformative tool to advance critical zone science , 2015 .

[40]  Emma Archer,et al.  Dryland Systems , 2006 .

[41]  Roberta E. Martin,et al.  Linking imaging spectroscopy and LiDAR with floristic composition and forest structure in Panama , 2014 .

[42]  John A. Young,et al.  USGS lidar science strategy—Mapping the technology to the science , 2016 .

[43]  Jon D. Pelletier,et al.  How do sediment yields from post‐wildfire debris‐laden flows depend on terrain slope, soil burn severity class, and drainage basin area? Insights from airborne‐LiDAR change detection , 2014 .

[44]  M. McClaran,et al.  Santa Rita Experimental Range: 100 years (1903 to 2003) of accomplishments and contributions; conference proceedings; 2003 October 30-November 1; Tucson, AZ , 2003 .

[45]  David Stuart,et al.  The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures and Their Consequences , 2015, Online Inf. Rev..

[46]  Manabu Watanabe,et al.  Fusion between UAV-SFM and terrestrial laser scanner for field validation of satellite remote sensing , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS).

[47]  Mary H. Nichols,et al.  Geographic information systems database, Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed, Arizona, United States , 2008 .

[48]  L. Wallace,et al.  Assessment of Forest Structure Using Two UAV Techniques: A Comparison of Airborne Laser Scanning and Structure from Motion (SfM) Point Clouds , 2016 .

[49]  C. Woodcock,et al.  The factor of scale in remote sensing , 1987 .

[50]  Jonathon J. Donager,et al.  UAV lidar and hyperspectral fusion for forest monitoring in the southwestern USA , 2017 .

[51]  S. Lane,et al.  Estimation of erosion and deposition volumes in a large, gravel‐bed, braided river using synoptic remote sensing , 2003 .

[52]  Erle C. Ellis,et al.  High spatial resolution three-dimensional mapping of vegetation spectral dynamics using computer vision , 2013 .

[53]  Karen Anderson,et al.  Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology , 2013 .

[54]  M. Turner,et al.  LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY : The Effect of Pattern on Process 1 , 2002 .

[55]  W. Christopher Lenhardt,et al.  The Tao of open science for ecology , 2015 .

[56]  Toby N. Tonkin,et al.  Reconstruction of former glacier surface topography from archive oblique aerial images , 2017 .