2007
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.6770
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stream network modelling using lidar and photogrammetric digital elevation models: a comparison and field verification

Abstract: Abstract:A conventional, photogrammetrically derived digital elevation model (DEM; 10 m resolution) and a light detection and ranging (lidar)-derived DEM (1 m resolution) were used to model the stream network of a 193 ha watershed in the Swan Hills of Alberta, Canada. Stream networks, modelled using both hydrologically corrected and uncorrected versions of the DEMs and derived from aerial photographs, were compared. The actual network, mapped in the field, was used as verification. The lidar DEM-derived networ… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
74
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 129 publications
(77 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
2
74
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…According to our field observations, these microtopographical features exert a considerable influence on downslope soil moisture distribution. Results from Murphy et al (2008) corroborate our findings by demonstrating that lidar DEMs more accurately captured the field-mapped hydrologic flow pathways than lower-resolution photogrammetric DEMs. Such micro-topographical features occur at scales much finer than 10 m-based TWIs and are therefore often not captured appropriately.…”
Section: Cell Size: 3 Vs 10 Msupporting
confidence: 84%
“…According to our field observations, these microtopographical features exert a considerable influence on downslope soil moisture distribution. Results from Murphy et al (2008) corroborate our findings by demonstrating that lidar DEMs more accurately captured the field-mapped hydrologic flow pathways than lower-resolution photogrammetric DEMs. Such micro-topographical features occur at scales much finer than 10 m-based TWIs and are therefore often not captured appropriately.…”
Section: Cell Size: 3 Vs 10 Msupporting
confidence: 84%
“…High-resolution elevation data can present additional problems when modeling water flow because some elements, such as bridges and roads, are present in the data (Duke and Kienzle 2003, Wang and Liu 2006, Murphy et al 2008, Poppenga et al 2010. In reality, water flow is possible past these features by flowing underneath a bridge or through a culvert, but in a DEM the elevation of the road or bridge masks that and obstructs modeled flow of water.…”
Section: Creating a Hydrologically Correct Demmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Over the past decade, improvements in global positioning systems (GPS), inertial navigation systems (INS), computer hardware, LiDAR processing software, and reduced acquisition costs have promoted many of these applications from research to operational status in several jurisdictions (Naesset 2004, Evans et al 2006, Stephens et al 2007). Examples include predictive hydrology modeling (Murphy et al 2008, Mandlburger et al 2009), road location optimization and construction (Akay et al 2004, Aruga et al 2005, White et al 2010, harvest block engineering (Chung et al 2004), habitat definition (Clawges et al 2008, Hinsley et al 2008, and timber quantification (Holmgren and Jonsson 2004, Naesset 2004, Parker and Evans 2007. Research conducted specifically in Ontario has focused on estimating forest inventory and biophysical variables for tolerant northern hardwoods (Lim et al 2001(Lim et al , 2002(Lim et al , 2003Todd et al 2003;Lim and Treitz 2004;Woods et al 2008), boreal mixedwoods (Thomas et al 2006(Thomas et al , 2008 and conifer plantations (Chasmer et al 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%