The Accuracy and Reliability of Traditional Surface Flow Type Mapping: Is it Time for a New Method of Characterizing Physical River Habitat?

Surface flow types (SFT) are advocated as ecologically relevant hydraulic units, often mapped visually from the bankside to characterise rapidly the physical habitat of rivers. SFT mapping is simple, non-invasive and cost-efficient. However, it is also qualitative, subjective and plagued by difficulties in recording accurately the spatial extent of SFT units. Quantitative validation of the underlying physical habitat parameters is often lacking, and does not consistently differentiate between SFTs. Here, we investigate explicitly the accuracy, reliability and statistical separability of traditionally mapped SFTs as indicators of physical habitat, using independent, hydraulic and topographic data collected during three surveys of a c. 50m reach of the River Arrow, Warwickshire, England. We also explore the potential of a novel remote sensing approach, comprising a small unmanned aerial system (sUAS) and Structure-from-Motion photogrammetry (SfM), as an alternative method of physical habitat characterisation. Our key findings indicate that SFT mapping accuracy is highly variable, with overall mapping accuracy not exceeding 74%. Results from analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) tests found that strong differences did not exist between all SFT pairs. This leads us to question the suitability of SFTs for characterising physical habitat for river science and management applications. In contrast, the sUAS-SfM approach provided high resolution, spatially continuous, spatially explicit, quantitative measurements of water depth and point cloud roughness at the microscale (spatial scales ≤1m). Such data are acquired rapidly, inexpensively, and provide new opportunities for examining the heterogeneity of physical habitat over a range of spatial and temporal scales. Whilst continued refinement of the sUAS-SfM approach is required, we propose that this method offers an opportunity to move away from broad, mesoscale classifications of physical habitat (spatial scales 10-100m), and towards continuous, quantitative measurements of the continuum of hydraulic and geomorphic conditions which actually exists at the microscale.

[1]  Jianguo Liu,et al.  Essential Image Processing and GIS for Remote Sensing , 2009 .

[2]  C. L. Padmore.  The role of physical biotopes in determining the conservation status and flow requirements of British rivers , 1998 .

[3]  Monica Rivas Casado,et al.  Automated Identification of River Hydromorphological Features Using UAV High Resolution Aerial Imagery , 2015, Sensors.

[4]  M. Reid,et al.  Surface flow types, near-bed hydraulics and the distribution of stream macroinvertebrates , 2008 .

[5]  A cost-effective approach for linking habitats, flow types and species requirements , 1998 .

[6]  G. Harvey,et al.  Microscale hydrodynamics and coherent flow structures in rivers: Implications for the characterization of physical habitat , 2009 .

[7]  W. Andrew Marcus,et al.  Mapping of stream microhabitats with high spatial resolution hyperspectral imagery , 2002, J. Geogr. Syst..

[8]  Michael F. Goodchild,et al.  Alternative representations of in‐stream habitat: classification using remote sensing, hydraulic modeling, and fuzzy logic , 2005, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[9]  M. Newson,et al.  Geomorphology, ecology and river channel habitat: mesoscale approaches to basin-scale challenges , 2000 .

[10]  R. A. Wadeson,et al.  A GEOMORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF INSTREAM FLOW ENVIRONMENTS , 1994 .

[11]  G. Heritage,et al.  Long‐reach Biotope Mapping: Deriving Low Flow Hydraulic Habitat from Aerial Imagery , 2016 .

[12]  D. Montgomery,et al.  Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins , 1997 .

[13]  R. Barnes.  AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS , 1999 .

[14]  K. R. Clarke,et al.  Change in marine communities : an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation , 2001 .

[15]  TERRESTRIAL LASER SCANNER BASED INSTREAM HABITAT QUANTIFICATION USING A RANDOM FIELD APPROACH , 2007 .

[16]  I. Maddock,et al.  Testing the Relationship Between Surface Flow Types and Benthic Macroinvertebrates , 2013 .

[17]  D. Milan,et al.  Mapping hydraulic biotopes using terrestrial laser scan data of water surface properties , 2010 .

[18]  Fleur Visser,et al.  A framework for evaluating the spatial configuration and temporal dynamics of hydraulic patches , 2012 .

[19]  F. Visser,et al.  Quantifying submerged fluvial topography using hyperspatial resolution UAS imagery and structure from motion photogrammetry , 2015 .

[20]  M. Munawar.  Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management Society , 1990 .

[21]  David Gilvear,et al.  Quantification of channel bed morphology in gravel-bed rivers using airborne multispectral imagery and aerial photography , 1997 .

[22]  Stuart N. Lane,et al.  The development of an automated correction ­procedure for digital photogrammetry for the study of wide, shallow, gravel‐bed rivers , 2000 .

[23]  D. Harper,et al.  A cost-effective approach for linking habitats, flow types and species requirements , 1998 .

[24]  Amy Woodget,et al.  Quantifying Fluvial Substrate Size using Hyperspatial Resolution UAS Imagery and SfM-photogrammetry , 2015 .

[25]  Michael Reid,et al.  Mapping stream surface flow types by balloon: an inexpensive high resolution remote sensing solution to rapid assessment of stream habitat heterogeneity? , 2009 .

[26]  G. Harvey,et al.  Physical habitat, eco-hydraulics and river design: a review and re-evaluation of some popular concepts and methods , 2006 .

[27]  Richard J. Aspinall.  A geographic information science perspective on hyperspectral remote sensing , 2002, J. Geogr. Syst..

[28]  K. Rowntree,et al.  Application of the hydraulic biotope concept to the classification of instream habitats , 1998 .

[29]  J. Boardman,et al.  High spatial resolution hyperspectral mapping of in-stream habitats, depths, and woody debris in mountain streams , 2003 .

[30]  Jim H. Chandler,et al.  UAV image blur – its influence and ways to correct it , 2015 .

[31]  W. Marcus,et al.  Evaluation of multispectral, fine scale digital imagery as a tool for mapping stream morphology , 2000 .

[32]  F. Dyer,et al.  Managing river flows for hydraulic diversity: an example of an upland regulated gravel‐bed river , 2006 .

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

[34]  Arko Lucieer,et al.  Assessing the Accuracy of Georeferenced Point Clouds Produced via Multi-View Stereopsis from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Imagery , 2012, Remote. Sens..

[35]  James Brasington,et al.  Computational and methodological aspects of terrestrial surface analysis based on point clouds , 2012, Comput. Geosci..

[36]  I. Maddock,et al.  Mesohabitat use by brown trout (Salmo trutta) in a small groundwater‐dominated stream , 2012 .

[37]  D. Gilvear,et al.  Image analysis of aerial photography to quantify changes in channel morphology and instream habitat following placer mining in interior Alaska , 1995 .

[38]  G. Pasternack,et al.  Relationships between mesoscale morphological units, stream hydraulics and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawning habitat on the Lower Yuba River, California , 2008 .

[39]  Tjalling de Haas,et al.  Debris-flow dominance of alluvial fans masked by runoff reworking and weathering , 2014 .

[40]  Andrea Petroselli,et al.  Assessment of drone-based surface flow observations , 2016 .

[41]  R. Lawrence,et al.  Effects of sensor resolution on mapping in-stream habitats , 2002 .

[42]  A. Tamminga,et al.  Hyperspatial Remote Sensing of Channel Reach Morphology and Hydraulic Fish Habitat Using an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV): A First Assessment in the Context of River Research and Management , 2015 .