Investigating the Surface and Subsurface in Karstic Regions – Terrestrial Laser Scanning versus Low-Altitude Airborne Imaging and the Combination with Geophysical Prospecting

Nora Tilly; Daniel Kelterbaum

doi:10.3934/geosci.2017.3.352

AIMS Geosciences, 2017, 3(3): 352-374. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2017.3.352. Research article

Export file:

Format

RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
BibTex
Text

Content

Citation Only
Citation and Abstract

Investigating the Surface and Subsurface in Karstic Regions – Terrestrial Laser Scanning versus Low-Altitude Airborne Imaging and the Combination with Geophysical Prospecting

Nora Tilly, Daniel Kelterbaum

Institute of Geography, University of Cologne, Germany

Received: , Accepted: , Published:

Abstract Full Text(HTML) Figure/Table Related pages

Combining measurements of the surface and subsurface is a promising approach to understand the origin and current changes of karstic forms since subterraneous processes are often the initial driving force. A karst depression in south-west Germany was investigated in a comprehensive campaign with remote sensing and geophysical prospecting. This contribution has two objectives: firstly, comparing terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) and low-altitude airborne imaging from an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) regarding their performance in capturing the surface. Secondly, establishing a suitable way of combining this 3D surface data with data from the subsurface, derived by geophysical prospecting. Both remote sensing approaches performed satisfying and the established digital elevation models (DEMs) differ only slightly. These minor discrepancies result essentially from the different viewing geometries and post-processing concepts, for example whether the vegetation was removed or not. Validation analyses against high-accurate DGPS-derived point data sets revealed slightly better results for the DEM_TLS with a mean absolute difference of 0.03 m to 0.05 m and a standard deviation of 0.03 m to 0.07 m (DEM_UAV: mean absolute difference: 0.11 m to 0.13 m; standard deviation: 0.09 m to 0.11 m). The 3D surface data and 2D image of the vertical cross section through the subsurface along a geophysical profile were combined in block diagrams. The data sets fit very well and give a first impression of the connection between surface and subsurface structures. Since capturing the subsurface with this method is limited to 2D and the data acquisition is quite time consuming, further investigations are necessary for reliable statements about subterraneous structures, how these may induce surface changes, and the origin of this karst depression. Moreover, geophysical prospecting can only produce a suspected image of the subsurface since the apparent resistivity is measured. Thus, further measurements, such as borehole drillings or ground-penetrating radar are necessary for a closer analysis of the subsurface. In summary, satisfying results were achieved, which however pave the way for further studies.

Figure/Table

Supplementary

Article Metrics

Keywords: Terrestrial laser scanning; low-altitude airborne imaging; digital elevation model; high-resolution mapping; geoelectric; electrical resistivity tomography; karst landscape

Citation: Nora Tilly, Daniel Kelterbaum. Investigating the Surface and Subsurface in Karstic Regions – Terrestrial Laser Scanning versus Low-Altitude Airborne Imaging and the Combination with Geophysical Prospecting. AIMS Geosciences, 2017, 3(3): 352-374. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2017.3.352

References:

1. Zepp H (2014) Geomorphologie. 6th ed. UTB, Stuttgart.
2. Tilly N, Kelterbaum D, Zeese R (2016) Geomorphological mapping with terrestrial laser scanning and uav-based imaging. Int Arch Photogramm, Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci–ISPRS Arch 41: 591-597.
3. Large ARG, Heritage GL (2009) Laser Scanning – Evolution of the Discipline. In: Heritage GL, and Large ARG, editors. Laser Scanning for the Environmental Sciences, Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK. 1-20.
4. Buckley SJ, Howell JA, Enge HD, et al (2008) Terrestrial laser scanning in geology: data acquisition, processing and accuracy considerations. J Geol Soc 165: 625-638.
5. Tarolli P (2014) High-resolution topography for understanding Earth surface processes: Opportunities and challenges. Geomorphol 216: 295-312.
6. Schaefer M, Inkpen R (2010) Towards a protocol for laser scanning of rock surfaces. Earth Surf Processes Landforms 35: 417-423.
7. Colomina I, Molina P (2014) Unmanned aerial systems for photogrammetry and remote sensing: A review. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 92: 79-97.
8. Shahbazi M, Sohn G, Théau J, et al. (2015) Development and Evaluation of a UAV-Photogrammetry System for Precise 3D Environmental Modeling. Sensors 15: 27493-27524.
9. Turner D, Lucieer A, Watson C (2012) An automated technique for generating georectified mosaics from ultra-high resolution Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) imagery, based on Structure from Motion (SFM) point clouds. Remote Sens 4: 1392-1410.
10. Westoby MJ, Brasington J, Glasser NF, et al. (2012) Structure-from-Motion photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphol 179: 300-314.
11. Tong X, Liu X, Chen P, et al. (2015) Integration of UAV-Based Photogrammetry and Terrestrial Laser Scanning for the Three-Dimensional Mapping and Monitoring of Open-Pit Mine Areas. Remote Sens 7: 6635-6662.
12. Smith MW, Carrivick JL, Quincey DJ (2015) Structure from motion photogrammetry in physical geography. Prog Phys Geogr 1-29.
13. Ouédraogo MM, Degré A, Debouche C, et al. (2014) The evaluation of unmanned aerial system-based photogrammetry and terrestrial laser scanning to generate DEMs of agricultural watersheds. Geomorphol 214: 339-355.
14. Butler DK (2005) Near-Surface Geophysics. Society of Exploration Geophysicists. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.9781560801719.
15. Kidanu ST, Torgashov EV, Varnavina AV, et al. (2016) ERT-based Investigation of a Sinkhole in Greene County, Missouri. AIMS Geosci 2: 99-115.
16. Berglund JL, Mickus K, Gouzie D (2014) Determining a relationship between a newly forming sinkhole and a former dry stream using electric resistivity tomography and very low-frequency electromagnetics in an urban karst setting. Interpret 2: 17-27.
17. Siart C, Hecht S, Holzhauer I, et al. (2010) Karst depressions as geoarchaeological archives: The palaeoenvironmental reconstruction of Zominthos (Central Crete), based on geophysical prospection, sedimentological investigations and GIS. QuatInt 216: 75-92.
18. Siart C, Ghilardi M, Forbriger M, et al. (2012) Terrestrial laser scanning and electrical resistivity tomography as combined tools for the geoarchaeological study of the Kritsa-Latô dolines (Mirambello, Crete, Greece). Géomorphol: Relief, Process, Environ 18: 59-74.
19. Siart C, Forbriger M, Nowaczinski E, et al. (2013) Fusion of multi-resolution surface (terrestrial laser scanning) and subsurface geodata (ERT, SRT) for karst landform investigation and geomorphometric quantification. Earth Surf Processes Landforms 38: 1135-1147.
20. Vlahovic T, Munda B (2012) Karst aquifers on small islands-the island of Olib, Croatia. Environ Monit Assess 184: 6211-6228.
21. Ahnert F (2009) Einführung in die Geomorphologie. 4th ed. UTB, Stuttgart.
22. Regierungspräsidium Freiburg (2017) Steckbrief Geotope–Ottensee NE von Mulfingen. Available from: http://www4.lgrb.uni-freiburg.de/serverbase/umn/etc/resources/link/gtk/gtk_1812.pdf.
23. Topcon Positioning Systems I (2006) HiPer Pro Operator's Manual. Available from: http://www.top-survey.com/top-survey/downloads/HiPerPro_om.pdf.
24. Riegl LMS GmbH (2010) Datasheet Riegl LMS-Z420i. Available from: http://www.riegl.com/uploads/tx_pxpriegldownloads/10_DataSheet_Z420i_03-05-2010.pdf.
25. DJI (2016) Datasheet Phantom 3. Available from: http://www.dji.com/de/product/phantom-3-adv.
26. DJI (2017) DJI GO app. Available from: http://www.dji.com/goapp.
27. GEO LOG (2017) Multi electrode system GeoTomMK8E1000 RES/IP/SP. Available from: http://geolog2000.de/EN/Geoelektrik/index.htm.
28. Stummer P, Maurer H, Green AG (2004) Experimental design: Electrical resistivity data sets that provide optimum subsurface information. Geophys 69: 120-139.
29. Samouëlian A, Cousin I, Tabbagh A, et al. (2005) Electrical resistivity survey in soil science: A review. Soil Tillage Res 83: 173-193.
30. Smith RC, Sjogren DB (2006) An evaluation of electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) in quaternary sediments, Southern Alberta, Canada. Geosph 2: 287-298.
31. Winters G, Ryvkin I, Rudkov T, et al. (2015) Mapping underground layers in the super arid Gidron Wadi using electrical resistivity tomography (ERT). J Arid Environ Elsevier Ltd 121: 79-83.
32. Johnston K, Ver Hoef JM, Krivoruchko K, et al. (2001) Using ArcGIS Geostatistical Analyst. ESRI, USA.
33. Geotomo (2017) RES2DINVx64. Available from: http://www.geotomosoft.com.
34. Loke MH, Barker RD (1996) Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent reistivity pseudosections by a quasi-Newton method. Geophys Prospect 44: 131-152.
35. Eltner A, Baumgart P (2015) Accuracy constraints of terrestrial Lidar data for soil erosion measurement: Application to a Mediterranean field plot. Geomorphol 245: 243-254.
36. Favalli M, Fornaciai A, Isola I, et al. (2012) Multiview 3D reconstruction in geosciences. Comput Geosci 44: 168-176.
37. Riegl LMS GmbH (2015) Datasheet Riegl VZ-2000. Available from: http://www.riegl.com/uploads/tx_pxpriegldownloads/DataSheet_VZ-2000_2015-03-24.pdf.
38. Leica Geoystems (2015) Datasheet Leica ScanStation P40. Available from: http://www.leica-geosystems.com/downloads123/hds/hds/general/brochures-datasheet/Leica_ScanStation_P30-P40_Plant_DS_en.pdf.
39. Velodyne (2014) Velodyne HDL-64E User's Manual. Available from: http://www.velodynelidar.com/lidar/products/manual/63-HDL64E S2 Manual_Rev D_2011_web.pdf.
40. Liang X, Kukko A, Kaartinen H, et al. (2013) Possibilities of a personal laser scanning system for forest mapping and ecosystem services. Sens 14: 1228-1248.
41. Ryding J, Williams E, Smith M, et al. (2015) Assessing Handheld Mobile Laser Scanners for Forest Surveys. Remote Sens 7: 1095-1111.
42. Bates KT, Rarity F, Manning PL, et al. (2008) High-resolution LiDAR and photogrammetric survey of the Fumanya dinosaur tracksites (Catalonia): implications for the conservation and interpretation of geological heritage sites. J Geol Soc 165: 115-127.
43. Nex F, Rinaudo F (2011) LiDAR or Photogrammetry? Integration is the answer. Italian J Remote Sens 43: 107-121.
44. Fabris M, Baldi P, Anzidei M, et al. (2010) High resolution topographic model of Panarea Island by fusion of photogrammetric, lidar and bathymetric digital terrain models. Photogramm Rec 25: 382-401.
45. Ahmed S, Carpenter PJ (2003) Geophysical response of filled sinkholes, soil pipes and associated bedrock fractures in thinly mantled karst, east-central Illinois. Environ Geol 44: 705-716.
46. Mauriello P, Monna D, Patella D (1998) 3D geoelectric tomography and archaeological applications. Geophys Prospect 46: 543-570.
47. Alaia R, Patella D, Mauriello P (2008) Application of geoelectrical 3D probability tomography in a test-site of the archaeological park of Pompei (Naples, Italy). J Geophys Eng 5: 67-76.

show all references

Reader Comments

your name: * your email: *

Copyright Info: 2017, Nora Tilly, et al., licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Associated material

Metrics