How does co-registration affect geomorphic change estimates in multi-temporal surveys?

ABSTRACT High-Resolution Topography (HRT) data sets are becoming increasingly available, improving our ability and opportunities to monitor geomorphic changes through multi-temporal Digital Terrain Models (DTMs). The use of repeated topographic surveys enables inferring the sediment dynamics of hazardous geomorphic processes such as floods, debris flows, and landslides, and allows us to derive important information on the risks often associated with these processes. The topographic surveying platforms, georeferencing systems, and processing tools have seen important developments in the last two decades, in particular Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) technology used in Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) and Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS). Moreover, HRT data, produced through these techniques, changed a lot in terms of point cloud density, accuracy and precision over time. Therefore, old “legacy” data sets and recent surveys can often show comparison problems, especially when multi-temporal data are not homogeneous in terms of quality and uncertainties. In this context, data co-registration should be used to guarantee the coherence among multi-temporal surveys, minimizing, on stable areas, the distance between corresponding points acquired at different epochs. Although several studies highlight that this process is fundamental to properly compare multi-temporal DTMs, it is often not addressed in LiDAR post-processing workflows. In this paper we focus on the alignment of multi-temporal surveys in a topographically complex and rugged environment as the Moscardo debris-flow catchment (Eastern Italian Alps), testing various co-registration methods to align multi-temporal ALS point clouds (i.e. years 2003, 2009 and 2013) and the derived DTMs. In particular, we tested the pairwise registration with manual correspondences, the Iterative Closest Point (ICP) algorithm and a mathematical model that allows aligning simultaneously a generic number of point clouds, the so-called Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA), also in its GPA-ICP variant. Then, to correct the possible small inaccuracies generated from the gridding interpolation process, a custom-developed DTM co-registration tool (GRD-CoReg) was used to align gridded data. Both alignment phases (i.e. at point cloud and DTM level) proved to be fundamental and allowed us to obtain proper and reliable DTMs of Difference (DoDs), useful to quantify the debris mobilized and to detect the spatial and temporal patterns of catchment-scale erosion and deposition. The consistency of DoDs data was verified through the comparison between the erosion estimate of DoDs and the volumes of debris-flow events measured by the monitoring station close to the Moscardo torrent catchment outlet. The GPA-ICP algorithm followed by the GRD-CoReg tool proved to be the most effective solution for improving DoDs results with a decrease of systematic trend due to vertical and horizontal uncertainties between surveys, especially at steep slopes. The net volume difference (i.e. the sediment output from the catchment) of the 2003–2013 period changed from 3,237,896 m3 to 135,902 m3 in DoDs obtained from not co-registered and co-registered DTMs. The volume of debris flows measured at the catchment outlet during the same time interval amounts to 169,660 m3. The comparison with debris-flow volume measures at the monitoring station shows, therefore, that the DTMs obtained from the co-registration processes generate more reliable DoDs than those obtained from the raw DTMs (without the alignment).

[1]  N. Pfeifer,et al.  A Correspondence Framework for ALS Strip Adjustments based on Variants of the ICP Algorithm , 2015 .

[2]  Tamotsu Takahashi,et al.  Debris Flow: Mechanics, Prediction and Countermeasures , 2007 .

[3]  Andrea Fusiello,et al.  Generalized Isotropic Procrustes Analysis , 2019, Advanced Procrustes Analysis Models in Photogrammetric Computer Vision.

[4]  J. Brasington,et al.  Accounting for uncertainty in DEMs from repeat topographic surveys: improved sediment budgets , 2009 .

[5]  Natan Micheletti,et al.  Investigating the geomorphological potential of freely available and accessible structure‐from‐motion photogrammetry using a smartphone , 2015 .

[6]  W. Marcus,et al.  High resolution, basin extent observations and implications for understanding river form and process , 2010 .

[7]  Damià Vericat,et al.  Monitoring topographic changes through 4D-structure-from-motion photogrammetry: application to a debris-flow channel , 2018, Environmental Earth Sciences.

[8]  D. Milan,et al.  Filtering spatial error from DEMs: Implications for morphological change estimation , 2011 .

[9]  Martin Rutzinger,et al.  Deriving 3D displacement vectors from multi-temporal airborne laser scanning data for landslide activity analyses , 2015 .

[10]  Norbert Silvera,et al.  Accuracy of interpolation techniques for the derivation of digital elevation models in relation to landform types and data density , 2006 .

[11]  Andrea Fusiello,et al.  4D-SFM PHOTOGRAMMETRY FOR MONITORING SEDIMENT DYNAMICS IN A DEBRIS-FLOW CATCHMENT: SOFTWARE TESTING AND RESULTS COMPARISON , 2018, The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences.

[12]  J. Brasington,et al.  Revisiting the Morphological Approach , 2017 .

[13]  Marc Levoy,et al.  Efficient variants of the ICP algorithm , 2001, Proceedings Third International Conference on 3-D Digital Imaging and Modeling.

[14]  J. Brasington,et al.  Geomorphic impact and assessment of flexible barriers using multi-temporal LiDAR data: The Portainé mountain catchment (Pyrenees) , 2018 .

[15]  Andrea Fusiello,et al.  Orthogonal Procrustes Analysis , 2019, Advanced Procrustes Analysis Models in Photogrammetric Computer Vision.

[16]  Justin K. Dix,et al.  Assessing debris flows using LIDAR differencing: 18 May 2005 Matata event, New Zealand , 2010 .

[17]  Fabio Crosilla,et al.  Use of generalised Procrustes analysis for the photogrammetric block adjustment by independent models , 2002 .

[18]  Arko Lucieer,et al.  Time Series Analysis of Landslide Dynamics Using an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) , 2015, Remote. Sens..

[19]  高橋 保 Debris flow : mechanics, prediction and countermeasures , 2007 .

[20]  D. Milan,et al.  Influence of survey strategy and interpolation model on DEM quality , 2009 .

[21]  Maarten Bakker,et al.  Archival photogrammetric analysis of river–floodplain systems using Structure from Motion (SfM) methods , 2017 .

[22]  Michael Krautblatter,et al.  Comparison of Multi-temporal Elevation Models of a Debris-Flow Channel , 2019 .

[23]  Hervé Piégay,et al.  Step by step error assessment in braided river sediment budget using airborne LiDAR data , 2014 .

[24]  Andrea Fusiello,et al.  Procrustean Photogrammetry: From Exterior Orientation to Bundle Adjustment , 2018 .

[25]  A. F. Habib,et al.  LIDAR STRIP ADJUSTMENT USING CONJUGATE LINEAR FEATURES IN OVERLAPPING STRIPS , 2008 .

[26]  Andrea Berton,et al.  Development and Performance Assessment of a Low-Cost UAV Laser Scanner System (LasUAV) , 2018, Remote. Sens..

[27]  Roberto Toldo,et al.  Global registration of multiple point clouds embedding the Generalized Procrustes Analysis into an ICP framework , 2010 .

[28]  K. Oost,et al.  Reproducibility of UAV-based earth topography reconstructions based on Structure-from-Motion algorithms , 2016 .

[29]  George E. Hilley,et al.  Multitemporal ALSM change detection, sediment delivery, and process mapping at an active earthflow , 2012 .

[30]  S. Veyrat‐Charvillon,et al.  Stereophotogrammetry of archive data and topographic approaches to debris‐flow torrent measurements: calculation of channel‐sediment states and a partial sediment budget for Manival torrent (Isère, France) , 2006 .

[31]  Adam Mosbrucker,et al.  Camera system considerations for geomorphic applications of SfM photogrammetry , 2017 .

[32]  P. Schönemann,et al.  Fitting one matrix to another under choice of a central dilation and a rigid motion , 1970 .

[33]  J. Gower Generalized procrustes analysis , 1975 .

[34]  Fabio Crosilla,et al.  Procrustes Analysis and Geodetic Sciences , 2003 .

[35]  Erle C. Ellis,et al.  Mapping the Topographic Fingerprints of Humanity Across Earth , 2017 .

[36]  Andrea Fusiello,et al.  3D Model Registration by Generalized Procrustes Analysis , 2019, Advanced Procrustes Analysis Models in Photogrammetric Computer Vision.

[37]  Dimitri Lague,et al.  Analyzing High Resolution Topography for Advancing the Understanding of Mass and Energy Transfer Through Landscapes: A Review , 2015 .

[38]  Christian Scheidl,et al.  The use of airborne LiDAR data for the analysis of debris flow events in Switzerland , 2008 .

[39]  F. Comiti,et al.  Glacier melt runoff controls bedload transport in Alpine catchments , 2019, Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

[40]  Richard J. Hardy,et al.  Optimising 4-D surface change detection: an approach for capturing rockfall magnitude–frequency , 2018 .

[41]  Zhengyou Zhang,et al.  Iterative point matching for registration of free-form curves and surfaces , 1994, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[42]  Damià Vericat,et al.  Geomorphic effectiveness of check dams in a debris-flow catchment using multi-temporal topographic surveys , 2019, CATENA.

[43]  Fulvio Rinaudo,et al.  Multiple scan registration in LIDAR close-range applications , 2003 .

[44]  Ian C. Fuller,et al.  Assessing DEM interpolation methods for effective representation of upland stream morphology for rapid appraisal of bed stability , 2012 .

[45]  Nicholas C. Coops,et al.  Evaluating error associated with lidar-derived DEM interpolation , 2009, Comput. Geosci..

[46]  Florian Frank,et al.  The importance of entrainment and bulking on debris flow runout modeling: Examples from the Swiss Alps , 2015 .

[47]  W. Pratt Introduction to Digital Image Processing , 2013 .

[48]  Norbert Pfeifer,et al.  OPALS - A framework for Airborne Laser Scanning data analysis , 2014, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[49]  Zachary H. Bowen,et al.  EVALUATION OF LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING (LIDAR) FOR MEASURING RIVER CORRIDOR TOPOGRAPHY 1 , 2002 .

[50]  F. Cazorzi,et al.  Multi-temporal analysis of the role of check dams in a debris-flow channel: Linking structural and functional connectivity , 2019, Geomorphology.

[51]  J. Brasington,et al.  Methodological sensitivity of morphometric estimates of coarse fluvial sediment transport , 2003 .

[52]  Wayne Niblack,et al.  An introduction to digital image processing , 1986 .

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

[54]  F. Cazorzi,et al.  Decoupled kinematics of two neighbouring permafrost creeping landforms in the Eastern Italian Alps , 2019, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms.

[55]  M. Hodgson,et al.  Accuracy of Airborne Lidar-Derived Elevation: Empirical Assessment and Error Budget , 2004 .

[56]  Manuel A. Aguilar,et al.  Modelling vertical error in LiDAR-derived digital elevation models , 2010 .

[57]  M. Arattano,et al.  Ten years of debris-flow monitoring in the Moscardo Torrent (Italian Alps) , 2002 .

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

[59]  Oldrich Hungr,et al.  Quantitative analysis of debris torrent hazards for design of remedial measures , 1984 .

[60]  Alessandro Corsini,et al.  Kinematics of active earthflows revealed by digital image correlation and DEM subtraction techniques applied to multi‐temporal LiDAR data , 2013 .

[61]  M. Cavalli,et al.  Modelling the dynamics of a large rock landslide in the Dolomites (eastern Italian Alps) using multi-temporal DEMs , 2018, PeerJ.

[62]  J. Hillier,et al.  Debris‐flow release processes investigated through the analysis of multi‐temporal LiDAR datasets in north‐western Iceland , 2019 .

[63]  J. Wheaton,et al.  Landscape-scale geomorphic change detection: Quantifying spatially variable uncertainty and circumventing legacy data issues , 2015 .

[64]  J. Brasington,et al.  Modeling river bed morphology, roughness, and surface sedimentology using high resolution terrestrial laser scanning , 2012 .

[65]  Alexander L. Densmore,et al.  Detection of surface change in complex topography using terrestrial laser scanning: application to the Illgraben debris‐flow channel , 2011 .

[66]  Neil Dixon,et al.  Optimising the quality of an SfM‐MVS slope monitoring system using fixed cameras , 2019, The Photogrammetric Record.

[67]  Rupesh Shrestha,et al.  A Slope-based Method for Matching Elevation Surfaces , 2011 .

[68]  N. Coops,et al.  Satellites: Make Earth observations open access , 2014, Nature.

[69]  Alejandro Hinojosa-Corona,et al.  Optimization of legacy lidar data sets for measuring near‐field earthquake displacements , 2014 .

[70]  Margreth Keiler,et al.  Methods for detecting channel bed surface changes in a mountain torrent – experiences from the Dorfbach torrent , 2015 .

[71]  B. Green THE ORTHOGONAL APPROXIMATION OF AN OBLIQUE STRUCTURE IN FACTOR ANALYSIS , 1952 .

[72]  P. Johnson,et al.  Mud and Debris Flows , 1996 .

[73]  J. Skaloud,et al.  Accuracy Estimation for Laser Point Cloud Including Scanning Geometry , 2007 .

[74]  O. Sass,et al.  Combining airborne and terrestrial laser scanning for quantifying erosion and deposition by a debris flow event , 2012 .

[75]  Damià Vericat,et al.  Can inpainting improve digital terrain analysis? Comparing techniques for void filling, surface reconstruction and geomorphometric analyses , 2020, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms.

[76]  M. Cavalli,et al.  Assessment of erosion and deposition in steep mountain basins by differencing sequential digital terrain models , 2017 .

[77]  P. Tarolli,et al.  Variations in multiscale curvature distribution and signatures of LiDAR DTM errors , 2013 .

[78]  Paul J. Besl,et al.  A Method for Registration of 3-D Shapes , 1992, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[79]  Gérard G. Medioni,et al.  Object modelling by registration of multiple range images , 1992, Image Vis. Comput..

[80]  H. Sohn,et al.  Incorporating the effect of ALS-derived DEM uncertainty for quantifying changes due to the landslide in 2011, Mt. Umyeon, Seoul , 2020, GIScience & Remote Sensing.