Quantifying streambank erosion: A comparison of physical surveys, aerial imagery and UAS LiDAR surveys

被引:0
作者
El-Khoury, Layla [1 ]
Kurki-Fox, Jack [1 ]
Doll, Barbara [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] North Carolina State Univ, Biol & Agr Engn, Raleigh, NC 27695 USA
[2] North Carolina Sea Grant, Raleigh, NC USA
关键词
aerial imagery; geomorphic change; LiDAR; physical surveys; streambank erosion; RIVER BANK EROSION; SOUTHWESTERN VIRGINIA; SUBAERIAL PROCESSES; DIFFICULT RUN; SEDIMENT; URBAN; MODEL; UNCERTAINTY; RATES; DISTURBANCE;
D O I
10.1002/esp.70039
中图分类号
P9 [自然地理学];
学科分类号
0705 ; 070501 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 79 条
[1]  
Altland D., 2020, Consensus recommendations for improving the application of the prevented sediment protocol for urban stream restoration projects built for pollutant removal credit
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2015, COMPILATION COST DAT
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2024, PRISM Climate Group
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2022, ArcGIS Pro
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2017, NATL WATER QUALITY I
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2016, GT Series Robotic Total Station
[7]  
[Anonymous], 1997, PREDICTING SOIL EROS
[8]   Channel head response to anthropogenic landscape modification: A case study from the North Carolina Piedmont, USA, with implications for water quality [J].
Atkins, Rachel M. ;
Wegmann, Karl W. ;
Bohnenstiehl, Del Wayne R. .
EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS, 2023, 48 (02) :433-451
[9]   Bank erosion and channel width change in a tropical catchment [J].
Bartley, Rebecca ;
Keen, Rex J. ;
Hawdon, Aaron A. ;
Hairsine, Peter B. ;
Disher, Mark G. ;
Kinsey-Henderson, A. E. .
EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS, 2008, 33 (14) :2174-2200
[10]   Large Shift in Source of Fine Sediment in the Upper Mississippi River [J].
Belmont, Patrick ;
Gran, Karen B. ;
Schottler, Shawn P. ;
Wilcock, Peter R. ;
Day, Stephanie S. ;
Jennings, Carrie ;
Lauer, J. Wesley ;
Viparelli, Enrica ;
Willenbring, Jane K. ;
Engstrom, Daniel R. ;
Parker, Gary .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2011, 45 (20) :8804-8810