4.7 Article

Waterline mapping in flooded vegetation from airborne SAR imagery

Journal

REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT
Volume 85, Issue 3, Pages 271-281

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0034-4257(03)00006-3

Keywords

synthetic aperture radar; wetlands; vegetation; shorelines

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multifrequency, polarimetric airborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) survey of a salt marsh on the east coast of the UK is used to investigate the radar backscattering properties of emergent salt marsh vegetation. Two characteristics of flooded vegetation are observed: backscatter enhanced by approximately 1.2 dB at C-band, and 180degrees HH-VV phase differences at L-band. Both are indicative of a double bounce backscattering mechanism between the horizontal water surface and upright emergent vegetation. The mapping of inundated vegetation is demonstrated for both these signatures, using a statistical active contour model for the C-band enhanced backscatter, and median filtering and thresholding for the L-band HH-VV phase difference. The two techniques are validated against the waterline derived from tidal elevation measured at the time of overpass intersected with an intertidal DEM derived from airborne laser altimetry. The inclusion of flooded vegetation is found to reduce errors in waterline location by a factor of approximately 2, equivalent to a reduction in waterline location error from 120 to 70 m. The DEM is also used to derive SAR waterline heights, which are observed to underpredict the tidal elevation due to the effects of vegetation. The underprediction can be corrected for vegetation effects using canopy height maps derived from the laser altimetry. This third technique is found to improve the systematic error in waterline heights from 20 to 4 cm, but little improvement in random error is evident, chiefly due to significant noise in the vegetation height map. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available