Workflow for hydrologic modelling with sUAS-acquired aerial imagery

References

• Achleitner S, Rauch W. 2007. Increase of river base flow by hydropower gate operation for mitigation of CSO impacts – potential and limitations. Water Resour Manage. 21(9):1487–1503.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allmaras RR, Burwell RE, Larson WE, Holt RF, Nelson WW. 1966. Total porosity and random roughness of the interrow zone as influenced by tillage. In: USDA conservation, Research Report no. 7. USDA, editor. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; p. 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• ASPRS Accuracy Standards for Digital Geospatial Data 2013. [place unknown]: American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS).
   Google Scholar
• Auer I, Böhm R, Hofstätter M, Türk K, Kottek M. 2011. Long-term climate of Carinthia: Historical climate trends, future scenarios and climate change indices for the province of Carinthia. Vienna: ZAMG. p. 39.
   Google Scholar
• Blaes X, Defourny P. 2008. Characterizing bidimensional roughness of agricultural soil surfaces for SAR modelling. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sensing. 46(12):4050–4061.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boiffin J. 1984. La dégradation structurale des couches superficielles du sol sous l'action des pluies. Thèse de Docteur-Ingénieur, Inst. Natl. Agr., Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Bonacci O, Oskoruš D. 2010. The changes in the lower Drava River water level, discharge and suspended sediment regime. Environ Earth Sci. 59(8):1661–1670.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chow VT. 1959. Open-channel hydraulics. New York: McGraw-Hill; p. 680.
   Google Scholar
• Clark MP, Bierkens MFP, Samaniego L, Woods RA, Uijlenhoet R, Bennett KE, Pauwels VRN, Cai X, Wood AW, Peters-Lidard CD. 2017. The evolution of process-based hydrologic models: historical challenges and the collective quest for physical realism. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 21(7):3427–3440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman GE, Rahmeyer WJ, Copeland RR. 2000. Determination of flow resistance coefficients due to shrubs and woody vegetation. In: Vicksburg MS, editor. ERDC/CHL-CHETN-VII-3. USACE.: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
   Google Scholar
• Currence H, Lovely W. 1970. The analysis of soil surface roughness. Trans ASAE. 13:710–714.
   Google Scholar
• Davidson MWJ, Toan TL, Mattia F, Satalino G, Manninen T, Borgeaud M. 2000. On the characterization of agricultural soil roughness for radar remote sensing studies. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 38(2):630–640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Roos S, Turner D, Lucieer A, Bowman D. 2018. Using digital surface models from UAS imagery of fire damaged sphagnum peatlands for monitoring and hydrological restoration. Drones. 2(4):45.
   Google Scholar
• Dorn H, Vetter M, Höfle B. 2014. GIS-based roughness derivation for flood simulations: a comparison of orthophotos, LiDAR and crowdsourced geodata. Remote Sens. 6(2):1739–1759.
   Google Scholar
• Drava River Floods Hundreds of Homes 2012. The Slovenian Times. http://www.sloveniatimes.com/drava-river-floods-hundreds-of-homes.
   Google Scholar
• EC. 2011. LIFE Project ‘Lebensader Obere Drau’. Final Report. Brussels: European Commission; 120 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Govers G, Takken I, Helming K. 2000. Soil roughness and overland flow. Agronomie. 20(2):131–146.
   Google Scholar
• Jenness J. 2013. Topographic Position Index (tpi_jen.avx) extension for ArcView 3.x, v. 1.2. Jenness Enterprises. Available at: http://www.jennessent.com/arcview/tpi.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Kamphorst EC, Jetten V, GuéRif J, PitkäNen J, Iversen BV, Douglas JT, Paz A. 2000. Predicting depressional storage from soil surface roughness. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 64(5):1749–1758.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koutalakis P, Tzoraki O, Zaimes G. 2019. UAVs for hydrologic scopes: application of a low-cost UAV to estimate surface water velocity by using three different image-based methods. Drones. 3(1):14.
   Google Scholar
• Langhammer J, Bernsteinová J, Miřijovský J. 2017. Building a high-precision 2D hydrodynamic flood model using UAV photogrammetry and sensor network monitoring. Water. 9(11):861–822.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis QW, Lindroth EM, Rhoads BL. 2018. Integrating unmanned aerial systems and LSPIV for rapid, cost-effective stream gauging. J Hydrol. 560:230–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marzahn P, Ludwig R. 2009. On the derivation of soil surface roughness from multi parametric PolSAR data and its potential for hydrological modelling. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 13(3):381–394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marzahn P, Rieke-Zapp D, Ludwig R. 2012. Assessment of soil surface roughness statistics for microwave remote sensing applications using a simple photogrammetric acquisition system. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 72:80–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niedzielski T, Witek M, Spallek W. 2016. Observing river stages using unmanned aerial vehicles. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 20(8):3193–3205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robert B, Senay M, Plamondon MP, Sabourin J. 2003. Characterization and ranking of links connecting life support networks. Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, editor. Ottawa, ON: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada; p. 74.
   Google Scholar
• Taconet O, Ciarletti V. 2007. Estimating soil roughness indices on a ridge-and-furrow surface using stereo photogrammetry. Soil Till Res. 93(1):64–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tokarczyk P, Leitao JP, Rieckermann J, Schindler K, Blumensaat F. 2015. High-quality observation of surface imperviousness for urban runoff modelling using UAV imagery. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 19(10):4215–4228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toutin T. 2004. Review article: geometric processing of remote sensing images: models, algorithms and methods. Int J Remote Sens. 25(10):1893–1924.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoest N, Lievens H, Wagner W, Álvarez-Mozos J, Moran M, Mattia F. 2008. On the soil roughness parameterization problem in soil moisture retrieval of bare surfaces from synthetic aperture radar. Sensors. 8(7):4213–4248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vivoni ER, Rango A, Anderson CA, Pierini NA, Schreiner-McGraw AP, Saripalli S, Laliberte AS. 2014. Ecohydrology with unmanned aerial vehicles. Ecosphere. 5(10):art130–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster R, Oliver M. 2007. Geostatistics for environmental scientists. Cornwall: Wiley. (Statistics in Practice).
   Google Scholar
• Ye A, Zhou Z, You J, Ma F, Duan Q. 2018. Dynamic Manning’s roughness coefficients for hydrological modelling in basins. Hydrology Research [Internet]. [cited 2019 May 13]; In press. Available from: https://iwaponline-com.libproxy.unm.edu/hr/article-abstract/49/5/1379/38878
   Google Scholar
• Zhang S, Liu Y. 2017. Experimental study on anisotropic attributes of surface roughness watersheds. J Hydrol Eng. 22(11):06017005–06017006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang S, Liu Y, Zhang J, Liu Y, Wang Z. 2018. Theory and preliminary experimental verification of the directional difference of overland flow resistance in distributed hydrological models. Water Science & Technology: Water Supply. 18(6):2142–2150.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang S, Liu Y, Li M, Liang B. 2016. Distributed hydrological models for addressing effects of spatial variability of roughness on overland flow. Water Sci Eng. 9(3):249–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar