Contributions of Airborne Topographic LiDAR to the Study of Coastal Systems

Levoy, Franck; Garestier, Franck; Froideval, Laurent; Monfort, Olivier; Poullain, Emilie

doi:10.1016/b978-1-78548-160-4.50006-6

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, during the June 2018 flight, 29 GCPs were used. The mean difference between Xgps and Xuav is −0.013 m, with RMSE 0.028 m; 0.015 m between Ygps and Yuav, with RMSE 0.029 m; and 0.023 m between Zgps and Zuav, with RMSE 0.02 m. The absolute topographic data obtained by UAV photogrammetry appears clearly better than those typically obtained from airborne LiDAR surveys (RMSE close to 0.1 m; Levoy et al ., 2016).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sand spit dynamics in a large tidal‐range environment: Insight from multiple LiDAR, UAV and hydrodynamic measurements on multiple spit hook development, breaching, reconstruction, and shoreline changes

Robin

Levoy

Anthony

et al. 2020

Earth Surf Processes Landf

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sand spits with distal hooks have been well documented from coasts with low to moderate tidal ranges, unlike high tidal‐range environments. Datasets from 15 LiDAR and 3 UAV surveys between 2009 and 2019 on the Agon spit in Normandy (France), a setting with one of the largest tidal ranges in the world (mean spring tidal range: 11 m), combined with in‐situ hydrodynamic records between 2013 and 2017, highlight a three‐stage pattern of spit hook evolution. Stage 1 (2009–2013) commenced with the onshore migration and attachment of a swash bar, followed by persistent spit accretion updrift of the bar and erosion downdrift because of the slow speed of bar migration in this large tidal‐range environment. In stage 2 (2013–2016), three overwash events and a 220 m‐wide breach culminating in the total destruction of the spit during winter 2015–2016 involved the landward mobilization of thousands of cubic metres of sand. These events occurred during short durations (a few hours) when spring high tides coincided with relatively energetic waves, underscoring the importance of storms in rapid spit morphological change. Strong spring tidal currents maintained the breach. Stage 3 (2016–2019) has involved new hook construction through welding of a swash bar and spit longshore extension, highlighting the resilience of the spit over the 10‐year period, and involving a positive sediment balance of 244 000 m3. The three stages bring out, by virtue of the temporal density of LiDAR and UAV data used, a high detail of spit evolution relative to earlier studies in this macrotidal setting. The large tidal range strongly modulates the role of waves and wave‐generated longshore currents, the main process drivers of spit evolution, by favouring long periods of inertia in the course of the spring–neap tidal cycle, but also brief episodes of significant morphological change when storm waves coincide with spring high tides. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sand spit dynamics in a large tidal‐range environment: Insight from multiple LiDAR, UAV and hydrodynamic measurements on multiple spit hook development, breaching, reconstruction, and shoreline changes

Robin

Levoy

Anthony

et al. 2020

Earth Surf Processes Landf

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Broader surveys using ground based-remote sensing methods including cameras (e.g., Holman and Stanley, 2007) or terrestrial LIDAR (e.g., Hobbs et al, 2010) are effective for small, selected areas (hundreds of meters), and mobile terrestrial LIDAR systems have been used for longer stretches of coast (tens of kilometers; Bitenc et al, 2011;Lim et al, 2013;Pietro, O'Neal, and Puleo, 2008). The current state of the art is airborne topographic-bathymetric LIDAR, which can be used for measuring coastal morphology and change at large spatial scales (hundreds of kilometers) with root-mean-squared errors (RMSE) of~10 cm (e.g., Bailly et al, 2016;Brock and Purkis, 2009;Hapke et al, 2010;Levoy et al, 2016;Nayegandhi et al, 2006;Sallenger et al, 2003;Sopkin et al, 2014;Stockdon, Doran, and Sallenger, 2009;Stockdon et al, 2002;Wozencraft and Millar, 2005;Zhang et al, 2005). Unfortunately, LIDAR is often cost prohibitive for many applications, including rapid assessment after storms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%