Evaluation of structure from motion for soil microtopography measurement

Recent developments in low-cost structure-from-motion (SfM) technologies offer new opportunities for geoscientists to acquire high-resolution soil microtopography data at a fraction of the cost of conventional techniques. However, these new methodologies often lack easily accessible error metrics and hence are difficult to evaluate. In this research, a framework was developed to evaluate a SfM approach for soil microtopography measurement through assessment of uncertainty sources and quantification of their potential impact on overall 3D reconstruction. Standard deviations of camera interior orientation parameters estimated from SfM self-calibration within five different soil surface models were several orders of magnitude larger than precisions expected from pattern-based camera calibration. Sensitivity analysis identified the principal point position as the dominant source of calibration-induced uncertainty. Overall, surface elevation values estimated from both technologies were similar in magnitude with a root mean square (RMS) of elevation difference of 0·2 mm. Nevertheless, the presence of deformation in either SfM or traditional photogrammetric point clouds highlights the importance of quality assurance safeguards (such as a judicious choice of control points) in SfM workflows for soil microtopography applications.

[1]  Suzelle Barrington,et al.  Tillage and soil type effects on soil surface roughness at semiarid climatic conditions , 2008 .

[2]  S. Nouwakpo,et al.  A Simplified Close-Range Photogrammetric Technique for Soil Erosion Assessment , 2012 .

[3]  Katharina Helming,et al.  Soil erosion under different rainfall intensities, surface roughness, and soil water regimes , 2002 .

[4]  Katharina Helming,et al.  Surface Roughness Related Processes of Runoff and Soil Loss: A Flume Study , 1998 .

[5]  David R. Kincaid,et al.  Rainfall Effects on Soil Surface Characteristics Following Range Improvement Treatments. , 1966 .

[6]  William J. Elliot,et al.  PHOTOGRAMMETRIC AND RILLMETER TECHNIQUES FOR HYDRAULIC MEASUREMENT IN SOIL EROSION STUDIES , 1997 .

[7]  S. Robson,et al.  Straightforward reconstruction of 3D surfaces and topography with a camera: Accuracy and geoscience application , 2012 .

[8]  A. Dolman,et al.  Inverse carbon dioxide flux estimates for the Netherlands , 2012 .

[9]  J. A. Gomez,et al.  Comparing the accuracy of several field methods for measuring gully erosion , 2012 .

[10]  Boubakeur Boufama,et al.  Three-dimensional structure calculation: achieving accuracy without calibration , 2004, Image Vis. Comput..

[11]  Osama Z. Al-Hamdan,et al.  Suitability of terrestrial laser scanning for studying surface roughness effects on concentrated flo , 2011 .

[12]  Zhengyou Zhang,et al.  A Flexible New Technique for Camera Calibration , 2000, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[13]  Chi-Hua Huang,et al.  An Instantaneous‐Profile Laser Scanner to Measure Soil Surface Microtopography , 2003 .

[14]  V. Ciarletti,et al.  Estimating soil roughness indices on a ridge-and-furrow surface using stereo photogrammetry , 2007 .

[15]  R. Rosenbauer,et al.  A photogrammetric surveying method for field applications , 2009 .

[16]  A. Porporato,et al.  Role of microtopography in rainfall‐runoff partitioning: An analysis using idealized geometry , 2010 .

[17]  A. C. Guzha,et al.  Effects of tillage on soil microrelief, surface depression storage and soil water storage , 2004 .

[18]  Mark A. Nearing,et al.  Digital close range photogrammetry for measurement of soil erosion , 2005 .

[19]  S. Nouwakpo,et al.  The Role of Subsurface Hydrology in Soil Erosion and Channel Network Development on a Laboratory Hillslope , 2012 .

[20]  J. Roering,et al.  Using DInSAR, airborne LiDAR, and archival air photos to quantify landsliding and sediment transport , 2009 .

[21]  Mark A. Nearing,et al.  Runoff and sediment losses from rough and smooth soil surfaces in a laboratory experiment , 2005 .

[22]  David G. Lowe,et al.  Object recognition from local scale-invariant features , 1999, Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision.

[23]  Janet Hooke,et al.  Use of terrestrial photogrammetry for monitoring and measuring bank erosion , 1997 .

[24]  D. Rieke-Zapp,et al.  Rill development and soil erosion: a laboratory study of slope and rainfall intensity , 2010 .

[25]  Cynthia S. A. Wallace,et al.  Quantifying soil surface change in degraded drylands: Shrub encroachment and effects of fire and vegetation removal in a desert grassland , 2012 .

[26]  José Santos-Victor,et al.  Uncertainty analysis of 3D reconstruction from uncalibrated views , 2000, Image Vis. Comput..

[27]  J. Chandler,et al.  Applying close range digital photogrammetry in soil erosion studies , 2010 .

[28]  Luc Van Gool,et al.  SURF: Speeded Up Robust Features , 2006, ECCV.

[29]  C. Ahn,et al.  Characterization of microtopography and its influence on vegetation patterns in created wetlands , 2007, Wetlands.

[30]  A. Klik,et al.  Soil surface roughness measurement—methods, applicability, and surface representation , 2005 .

[31]  R. Mata-González,et al.  Invasive plants and plant diversity as affected by groundwater depth and microtopography in the Great Basin , 2012 .

[32]  M. A. Aguilar,et al.  Off-the-shelf laser scanning and close-range digital photogrammetry for measuring agricultural soils microrelief , 2009 .

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