量化河岸侵蚀:物理调查、航空图像和无人机激光雷达调查的比较

IF 2.8 3区 地球科学 Q2 GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL
Layla El-Khoury, Jack Kurki-Fox, Barbara Doll
{"title":"量化河岸侵蚀:物理调查、航空图像和无人机激光雷达调查的比较","authors":"Layla El-Khoury,&nbsp;Jack Kurki-Fox,&nbsp;Barbara Doll","doi":"10.1002/esp.70039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Excessive or accelerated streambank erosion can harm stream ecosystems and negatively impact water supply and infrastructure systems. Streambank erosion can be the most significant source of in-stream sediment loads and associated contaminants. Site-specific, low-cost and timesaving methods to quantify active erosion rates are needed to identify and prioritize locations for restoration actions focused on reducing sediment loads and improving stream functions. Therefore, we examined several methods for quantifying streambank erosion at smaller spatial and temporal scales that are typical of most restoration projects. Physical surveys, aerial imagery analysis and Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) based light detection and ranging (LiDAR) surveys were conducted to document erosion at three streams in the Blue Ridge and Ridge and Valley regions of Virginia. Three methods were used to quantify bank retreat: 1) cross-section (XS) surveys, 2) top-of-bank (TOB) surveys and 3) aerial imagery analysis. The bank retreat rates were compared to rates estimated from aerial images collected during 2007 to 2019. All three methods were then paired with field-measured bank heights to estimate the volume of erosion. Reachwide erosion volumes were also estimated with digital elevation models (DEM) of Difference (DoD) using LiDAR data collected with an UAS. The estimated eroded sediment volumes varied widely across all methods but were of a similar magnitude. DoD produced the lowest estimated sediment loads, highest uncertainty and was statistically different from the average of the maximum erosion measured at all cross-sections. The volume of streambank erosion ranged from 0.18 to 1.26 m<sup>3</sup>/m/yr across all sites for all methods excluding DoD. Based on the small size of our study streams and the short monitoring period (one to two years), DoD was the least suitable method. Selecting the appropriate method for documenting and quantifying erosion depends on the time available, the purpose of estimating erosion, the resolution required and stream conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":11408,"journal":{"name":"Earth Surface Processes and Landforms","volume":"50 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/esp.70039","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantifying streambank erosion: A comparison of physical surveys, aerial imagery and UAS LiDAR surveys\",\"authors\":\"Layla El-Khoury,&nbsp;Jack Kurki-Fox,&nbsp;Barbara Doll\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/esp.70039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Excessive or accelerated streambank erosion can harm stream ecosystems and negatively impact water supply and infrastructure systems. Streambank erosion can be the most significant source of in-stream sediment loads and associated contaminants. Site-specific, low-cost and timesaving methods to quantify active erosion rates are needed to identify and prioritize locations for restoration actions focused on reducing sediment loads and improving stream functions. Therefore, we examined several methods for quantifying streambank erosion at smaller spatial and temporal scales that are typical of most restoration projects. Physical surveys, aerial imagery analysis and Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) based light detection and ranging (LiDAR) surveys were conducted to document erosion at three streams in the Blue Ridge and Ridge and Valley regions of Virginia. Three methods were used to quantify bank retreat: 1) cross-section (XS) surveys, 2) top-of-bank (TOB) surveys and 3) aerial imagery analysis. The bank retreat rates were compared to rates estimated from aerial images collected during 2007 to 2019. All three methods were then paired with field-measured bank heights to estimate the volume of erosion. Reachwide erosion volumes were also estimated with digital elevation models (DEM) of Difference (DoD) using LiDAR data collected with an UAS. The estimated eroded sediment volumes varied widely across all methods but were of a similar magnitude. DoD produced the lowest estimated sediment loads, highest uncertainty and was statistically different from the average of the maximum erosion measured at all cross-sections. The volume of streambank erosion ranged from 0.18 to 1.26 m<sup>3</sup>/m/yr across all sites for all methods excluding DoD. Based on the small size of our study streams and the short monitoring period (one to two years), DoD was the least suitable method. Selecting the appropriate method for documenting and quantifying erosion depends on the time available, the purpose of estimating erosion, the resolution required and stream conditions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Earth Surface Processes and Landforms\",\"volume\":\"50 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/esp.70039\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Earth Surface Processes and Landforms\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/esp.70039\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earth Surface Processes and Landforms","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/esp.70039","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

过度或加速的河岸侵蚀会损害河流生态系统,并对供水和基础设施系统产生负面影响。河岸侵蚀可能是河内泥沙负荷和相关污染物的最重要来源。需要特定地点、低成本和节省时间的方法来量化主动侵蚀率,以确定和优先考虑修复行动的地点,重点是减少沉积物负荷和改善河流功能。因此,我们在较小的空间和时间尺度上研究了几种量化大多数恢复项目典型的河岸侵蚀的方法。通过物理调查、航空图像分析和基于无人机系统(UAS)的光探测和测距(LiDAR)调查,记录了弗吉尼亚州蓝岭和岭谷地区三条河流的侵蚀情况。量化退岸采用了三种方法:1)横断面(XS)调查,2)岸顶(TOB)调查和3)航空图像分析。将银行撤退率与2007年至2019年收集的航空图像估计的比率进行了比较。然后将这三种方法与实地测量的河岸高度配对,以估计侵蚀的体积。利用UAS收集的激光雷达数据,通过数字高程模型(DEM)差分(DoD)估计河段侵蚀量。所有方法估计的侵蚀沉积物体积差异很大,但大小相似。DoD产生了最低的估计泥沙负荷,最高的不确定性,并且在统计上不同于在所有横截面测量的最大侵蚀的平均值。除DoD外,所有方法的所有站点的河岸侵蚀量范围为0.18至1.26 m3/m/年。由于我们的研究范围小,监测周期短(1 - 2年),DoD是最不合适的方法。选择适当的方法来记录和量化侵蚀取决于可用的时间、估计侵蚀的目的、所需的分辨率和河流条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quantifying streambank erosion: A comparison of physical surveys, aerial imagery and UAS LiDAR surveys

Excessive or accelerated streambank erosion can harm stream ecosystems and negatively impact water supply and infrastructure systems. Streambank erosion can be the most significant source of in-stream sediment loads and associated contaminants. Site-specific, low-cost and timesaving methods to quantify active erosion rates are needed to identify and prioritize locations for restoration actions focused on reducing sediment loads and improving stream functions. Therefore, we examined several methods for quantifying streambank erosion at smaller spatial and temporal scales that are typical of most restoration projects. Physical surveys, aerial imagery analysis and Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) based light detection and ranging (LiDAR) surveys were conducted to document erosion at three streams in the Blue Ridge and Ridge and Valley regions of Virginia. Three methods were used to quantify bank retreat: 1) cross-section (XS) surveys, 2) top-of-bank (TOB) surveys and 3) aerial imagery analysis. The bank retreat rates were compared to rates estimated from aerial images collected during 2007 to 2019. All three methods were then paired with field-measured bank heights to estimate the volume of erosion. Reachwide erosion volumes were also estimated with digital elevation models (DEM) of Difference (DoD) using LiDAR data collected with an UAS. The estimated eroded sediment volumes varied widely across all methods but were of a similar magnitude. DoD produced the lowest estimated sediment loads, highest uncertainty and was statistically different from the average of the maximum erosion measured at all cross-sections. The volume of streambank erosion ranged from 0.18 to 1.26 m3/m/yr across all sites for all methods excluding DoD. Based on the small size of our study streams and the short monitoring period (one to two years), DoD was the least suitable method. Selecting the appropriate method for documenting and quantifying erosion depends on the time available, the purpose of estimating erosion, the resolution required and stream conditions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 地学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
12.10%
发文量
215
审稿时长
4 months
期刊介绍: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms is an interdisciplinary international journal concerned with: the interactions between surface processes and landforms and landscapes; that lead to physical, chemical and biological changes; and which in turn create; current landscapes and the geological record of past landscapes. Its focus is core to both physical geographical and geological communities, and also the wider geosciences
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信