Comparing UAS LiDAR and Structure-from-Motion Photogrammetry for Peatland Mapping and Virtual Reality (VR) Visualization

The mapping of peatland microtopography (e.g., hummocks and hollows) is key for understanding and modeling complex hydrological and biochemical processes. Here we compare unmanned aerial system (UAS) derived structure-from-motion (SfM) photogrammetry and LiDAR point clouds and digital surface models of an ombrotrophic bog, and we assess the utility of these technologies in terms of payload, efficiency, and end product quality (e.g., point density, microform representation, etc.). In addition, given their generally poor accessibility and fragility, peatlands provide an ideal model to test the usability of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) visualizations. As an integrated system, the LiDAR implementation was found to be more straightforward, with fewer points of potential failure (e.g., hardware interactions). It was also more efficient for data collection (10 vs. 18 min for 1.17 ha) and produced considerably smaller file sizes (e.g., 51 MB vs. 1 GB). However, SfM provided higher spatial detail of the microforms due to its greater point density (570.4 vs. 19.4 pts/m2). Our VR/AR assessment revealed that the most immersive user experience was achieved from the Oculus Quest 2 compared to Google Cardboard VR viewers or mobile AR, showcasing the potential of VR for natural sciences in different environments. We expect VR implementations in environmental sciences to become more popular, as evaluations such as the one shown in our study are carried out for different ecosystems.

[1]  E. Humphreys,et al.  Dealing with microtopography of an ombrotrophic bog for simulating ecosystem-level CO2 exchanges , 2011 .

[2]  Markus Holopainen,et al.  Airborne small-footprint discrete-return LiDAR data in the assessment of boreal mire surface patterns, vegetation, and habitats , 2009 .

[3]  M. Kalacska,et al.  Evaluation of phenospectral dynamics with Sentinel-2A using a bottom-up approach in a northern ombrotrophic peatland , 2018, Remote Sensing of Environment.

[4]  Margaret Kalacska,et al.  Estimation of foliar chlorophyll and nitrogen content in an ombrotrophic bog from hyperspectral data: Scaling from leaf to image , 2015 .

[5]  Carlos Cabo,et al.  Structure from Motion Photogrammetry in Forestry: a Review , 2019, Current Forestry Reports.

[6]  Pascal Fua,et al.  LDAHash: Improved Matching with Smaller Descriptors , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[7]  K. Anderson,et al.  Laser scanning of fine scale pattern along a hydrological gradient in a peatland ecosystem , 2010, Landscape Ecology.

[8]  Harrison H. Schmitt,et al.  Investigating Lunar Boulders at the Apollo 17 Landing Site Using Photogrammetry and Virtual Reality , 2020, Remote. Sens..

[9]  Francesco Pirotti,et al.  Wetland Mapping with Landsat 8 OLI, Sentinel-1, ALOS-1 PALSAR, and LiDAR Data in Southern New Brunswick, Canada , 2020, Remote. Sens..

[10]  Laura Chasmer,et al.  Using Multitemporal and Multispectral Airborne Lidar to Assess Depth of Peat Loss and Correspondence With a New Active Normalized Burn Ratio for Wildfires , 2017 .

[11]  H. Joosten,et al.  The peatland map of Europe , 2017 .

[12]  M. Kalacska,et al.  The Directly-Georeferenced Hyperspectral Point Cloud: Preserving the Integrity of Hyperspectral Imaging Data , 2021, Frontiers in Remote Sensing.

[13]  Laura Chasmer,et al.  Vegetation class dependent errors in lidar ground elevation and canopy height estimates in a boreal wetland environment , 2005 .

[14]  Edward T. A. Mitchard,et al.  First Evidence of Peat Domes in the Congo Basin using LiDAR from a Fixed-Wing Drone , 2020, Remote. Sens..

[15]  L. Menichetti,et al.  The underappreciated potential of peatlands in global climate change mitigation strategies , 2018, Nature Communications.

[16]  André R. Backes,et al.  The power of 3D fractal dimensions for comparative shape and structural complexity analyses of irregularly shaped organisms , 2017 .

[17]  Fabio Bruno,et al.  Virtual dives into the underwater archaeological treasures of South Italy , 2018, Virtual Reality.

[18]  Steve Frolking,et al.  Interannual variability in the peatland‐atmosphere carbon dioxide exchange at an ombrotrophic bog , 2003 .

[19]  William P. Wagner,et al.  Virtual, mixed, and augmented reality: a systematic review for immersive systems research , 2021, Virtual Reality.

[20]  Anthony Scavarelli,et al.  Virtual reality and augmented reality in social learning spaces: a literature review , 2020, Virtual Reality.

[21]  Danielle Oprean,et al.  The value of being there: toward a science of immersive virtual field trips , 2019, Virtual Reality.

[22]  Maarten B. Eppinga,et al.  Regular Surface Patterning of Peatlands: Confronting Theory with Field Data , 2008, Ecosystems.

[23]  R. Dubayah,et al.  Lidar Remote Sensing for Forestry , 2000, Journal of Forestry.

[24]  M. Richardson,et al.  Delineation of peatland lagg boundaries from airborne LiDAR , 2017 .

[25]  Carles Sierra,et al.  Opening new dimensions for e-Tourism , 2007, Virtual Reality.

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

[27]  Rob Jamieson,et al.  Surface moisture and vegetation influences on lidar intensity data in an agricultural watershed , 2011 .

[28]  Nigel T. Roulet,et al.  Ecohydrological feedbacks in peatlands: an empirical test of the relationship among vegetation, microtopography and water table , 2016 .

[29]  H. Stenøien,et al.  Sphagnum divinum (sp. nov.) and S. medium Limpr. and their relationship to S. magellanicum Brid. , 2018, Journal of Bryology.

[30]  Peter M. Lafleur,et al.  Annual and seasonal variability in evapotranspiration and water table at a shrub‐covered bog in southern Ontario, Canada , 2005 .

[31]  George Leblanc,et al.  Estimating Peatland Water Table Depth and Net Ecosystem Exchange: A Comparison between Satellite and Airborne Imagery , 2018, Remote Sensing.

[32]  Bernd Hamann,et al.  A geoscience perspective on immersive 3D gridded data visualization , 2008, Comput. Geosci..

[33]  Line Rochefort,et al.  From Satellite Imagery to Peatland Vegetation Diversity: How Reliable Are Habitat Maps? , 2002 .

[34]  Gregory J. McDermid,et al.  Assessing the Value of UAV Photogrammetry for Characterizing Terrain in Complex Peatlands , 2017, Remote. Sens..

[35]  Danilo Medeiros Eler,et al.  Characterizing 3D Shapes Using Fractal Dimension , 2010, CIARP.

[36]  D. Carless,et al.  Mapping upland peat depth using airborne radiometric and lidar survey data , 2019, Geoderma.

[37]  Tim R. Moore,et al.  Fine-scale vegetation distribution in a cool temperate peatland , 2006 .

[38]  George Leblanc,et al.  Accuracy of 3D Landscape Reconstruction without Ground Control Points Using Different UAS Platforms , 2020, Drones.

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

[40]  Michael A. Gigante,et al.  Virtual Reality: Definitions, History and Applications , 1993, Virtual Reality Systems.

[41]  M. Kalacska,et al.  Structure from motion will revolutionize analyses of tidal wetland landscapes , 2017 .

[42]  George Leblanc,et al.  Implementation of a UAV–Hyperspectral Pushbroom Imager for Ecological Monitoring , 2019, Drones.

[43]  S. Hartley,et al.  Uses and abuses of fractal methodology in ecology , 2004 .

[44]  D. Roberts,et al.  Mapping tree and shrub leaf area indices in an ombrotrophic peatland through multiple endmember spectral unmixing , 2007 .

[45]  R. S. Clymo,et al.  Feedback control of the rate of peat formation , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[46]  Margaret Kalacska,et al.  Foliar Spectra and Traits of Bog Plants across Nitrogen Deposition Gradients , 2020, Remote. Sens..

[47]  S. Ullman The interpretation of structure from motion , 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[48]  Pierre Roudier,et al.  Digital mapping of peatlands – A critical review , 2019, Earth-Science Reviews.

[49]  Randall K. Kolka,et al.  Analysis of airborne LiDAR surveys to quantify the characteristic morphologies of northern forested wetlands , 2010 .

[50]  E. Tuittila,et al.  Fine-resolution mapping of microforms of a boreal bog using aerial images and waveform-recording LiDAR , 2020 .

[51]  Jamal Raiyn,et al.  The Role of Visual Learning in Improving Students’ High-Order Thinking Skills , 2016 .

[52]  Jiawei Huang,et al.  Walking through the forests of the future: using data-driven virtual reality to visualize forests under climate change , 2020, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[53]  George Leblanc,et al.  Airborne Hyperspectral Evaluation of Maximum Gross Photosynthesis, Gravimetric Water Content, and CO2 Uptake Efficiency of the Mer Bleue Ombrotrophic Peatland , 2018, Remote. Sens..

[54]  A. Laine,et al.  Modelling the habitat preference of two key Sphagnum species in a poor fen as controlled by capitulum water content , 2020 .

[55]  Steve Frolking,et al.  Plant biomass and production and CO2 exchange in an ombrotrophic bog , 2002 .

[56]  K. Mengersen,et al.  Using virtual reality and thermal imagery to improve statistical modelling of vulnerable and protected species , 2019, PloS one.

[57]  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 .

[58]  Lan Li,et al.  Application of virtual reality technology in clinical medicine. , 2017, American journal of translational research.

[59]  E. Tuittila,et al.  Peatlands in the Earth's 21st century climate system , 2011 .