4.7 Article

How Reliable Is Structure from Motion (SfM) over Time and between Observers? A Case Study Using Coral Reef Bommies

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs9070740

关键词

volume; surface area; management; photogrammetry; accuracy; precision; 3D; bleaching; drones; aerial survey

资金

  1. Department of Biological Sciences
  2. Marine Ecology Group at Macquarie University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent efforts to monitor the health of coral reefs have highlighted the benefits of using structure from motion-based assessments, and despite increasing use of this technique in ecology and geomorphology, no study has attempted to quantify the precision of this technique over time and across different observers. This study determined whether 3D models of an ecologically relevant reef structure, the coral bommie, could be constructed using structure from motion and be reliably used to measure bommie volume and surface area between different observers and over time. We also determined whether the number of images used to construct a model had an impact on the final measurements. Three dimensional models were constructed of over twenty coral bommies from Heron Island, a coral cay at the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef. This study did not detect any significant observer effect, and there were no significant differences in measurements over four sampling days. The mean measurement error across all bommies and between observers was 15 +/- 2% for volume measurements and 12 +/- 1% for surface area measurements. There was no relationship between the number of pictures taken for a reconstruction and the measurements from that model, however, more photographs were necessary to be able to reconstruct complete coral bommies larger than 1 m(3). These results suggest that structure from motion is a viable tool for ongoing monitoring of ecologically-significant coral reefs, especially to establish effects of disturbances, provided the measurement error is considered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据