Testing the utility of structure‐from‐motion photogrammetry reconstructions using small unmanned aerial vehicles and ground photography to estimate the extent of upland soil erosion

Quantifying the extent of soil erosion at a fine spatial resolution can be time consuming and costly; however, proximal remote sensing approaches to collect topographic data present an emerging alternative for quantifying soil volumes lost via erosion. Herein we compare terrestrial laser scanning (T...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Earth surface processes and landforms 2017-09, Vol.42 (12), p.1860-1871
Hauptverfasser: Glendell, Miriam, McShane, Gareth, Farrow, Luke, James, Mike R., Quinton, John, Anderson, Karen, Evans, Martin, Benaud, Pia, Rawlins, Barry, Morgan, David, Jones, Lee, Kirkham, Matthew, DeBell, Leon, Quine, Timothy A., Lark, Murray, Rickson, Jane, Brazier, Richard E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1871
container_issue 12
container_start_page 1860
container_title Earth surface processes and landforms
container_volume 42
creator Glendell, Miriam
McShane, Gareth
Farrow, Luke
James, Mike R.
Quinton, John
Anderson, Karen
Evans, Martin
Benaud, Pia
Rawlins, Barry
Morgan, David
Jones, Lee
Kirkham, Matthew
DeBell, Leon
Quine, Timothy A.
Lark, Murray
Rickson, Jane
Brazier, Richard E.
description Quantifying the extent of soil erosion at a fine spatial resolution can be time consuming and costly; however, proximal remote sensing approaches to collect topographic data present an emerging alternative for quantifying soil volumes lost via erosion. Herein we compare terrestrial laser scanning (TLS), and both unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and ground photography (GP) structure‐from‐motion (SfM) derived topography. We compare the cost‐effectiveness and accuracy of both SfM techniques to TLS for erosion gully surveying in upland landscapes, treating TLS as a benchmark. Further, we quantify volumetric soil loss estimates from upland gullies using digital surface models derived by each technique and subtracted from an interpolated pre‐erosion surface. Soil loss estimates from UAV and GP SfM reconstructions were comparable to those from TLS, whereby the slopes of the relationship between all three techniques were not significantly different from 1:1 line. Only for the TLS to GP comparison was the intercept significantly different from zero, showing that GP is more capable of measuring the volumes of very small erosion features. In terms of cost‐effectiveness in data collection and processing time, both UAV and GP were comparable with the TLS on a per‐site basis (13.4 and 8.2 person‐hours versus 13.4 for TLS); however, GP was less suitable for surveying larger areas (127 person‐hours per ha−1 versus 4.5 for UAV and 3.9 for TLS). Annual repeat surveys using GP were capable of detecting mean vertical erosion change on peaty soils. These first published estimates of whole gully erosion rates (0.077 m a−1) suggest that combined erosion rates on gully floors and walls are around three times the value of previous estimates, which largely characterize wind and rainsplash erosion of gully walls. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/esp.4142
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1939785609</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1939785609</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3502-ea68595f52a0f2aa7386a928f1eb15460b801de5ce6adf82d8de6a24ffa27d473</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1q3DAUhUVJoJNpII8g6CYbTyT5T1qGMGkKgRSSrI3Gvho7yJKrn7be9RHyOnmdPknlmWbZ1blwP517xEHogpINJYRdgZ82BS3YB7SiRFSZ4Hl9glaEijoTeV5_RGfevxBCacHFCr09gQ-D2ePQA45h0EOYsVXYBxfbEB38-f2qnB2TjDYM1uCpt8HunRxHCG7GDlprjnTaehz94uZHqTWOZpTGQIcluEFq_AP6odXgsTQd3jsbk7zbTf2Mg8VLmlEGOOSBXwFMWOLESS9vvB00Bmd9OvUJnSqpPZz_0zV6vt0-3dxl9w9fvt5c32cyLwnLQFa8FKUqmSSKSVnnvJKCcUVhR8uiIjtOaAdlC5XsFGcd79LECqUkq7uiztfo89F3cvZ7TPmaFxudSScbKnJR87IiIlGXR6pN6bwD1UwufcTNDSXNUkyTimmWYhKaHdGfg4b5v1yzffx24P8CN9KYAQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1939785609</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Testing the utility of structure‐from‐motion photogrammetry reconstructions using small unmanned aerial vehicles and ground photography to estimate the extent of upland soil erosion</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Glendell, Miriam ; McShane, Gareth ; Farrow, Luke ; James, Mike R. ; Quinton, John ; Anderson, Karen ; Evans, Martin ; Benaud, Pia ; Rawlins, Barry ; Morgan, David ; Jones, Lee ; Kirkham, Matthew ; DeBell, Leon ; Quine, Timothy A. ; Lark, Murray ; Rickson, Jane ; Brazier, Richard E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Glendell, Miriam ; McShane, Gareth ; Farrow, Luke ; James, Mike R. ; Quinton, John ; Anderson, Karen ; Evans, Martin ; Benaud, Pia ; Rawlins, Barry ; Morgan, David ; Jones, Lee ; Kirkham, Matthew ; DeBell, Leon ; Quine, Timothy A. ; Lark, Murray ; Rickson, Jane ; Brazier, Richard E.</creatorcontrib><description>Quantifying the extent of soil erosion at a fine spatial resolution can be time consuming and costly; however, proximal remote sensing approaches to collect topographic data present an emerging alternative for quantifying soil volumes lost via erosion. Herein we compare terrestrial laser scanning (TLS), and both unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and ground photography (GP) structure‐from‐motion (SfM) derived topography. We compare the cost‐effectiveness and accuracy of both SfM techniques to TLS for erosion gully surveying in upland landscapes, treating TLS as a benchmark. Further, we quantify volumetric soil loss estimates from upland gullies using digital surface models derived by each technique and subtracted from an interpolated pre‐erosion surface. Soil loss estimates from UAV and GP SfM reconstructions were comparable to those from TLS, whereby the slopes of the relationship between all three techniques were not significantly different from 1:1 line. Only for the TLS to GP comparison was the intercept significantly different from zero, showing that GP is more capable of measuring the volumes of very small erosion features. In terms of cost‐effectiveness in data collection and processing time, both UAV and GP were comparable with the TLS on a per‐site basis (13.4 and 8.2 person‐hours versus 13.4 for TLS); however, GP was less suitable for surveying larger areas (127 person‐hours per ha−1 versus 4.5 for UAV and 3.9 for TLS). Annual repeat surveys using GP were capable of detecting mean vertical erosion change on peaty soils. These first published estimates of whole gully erosion rates (0.077 m a−1) suggest that combined erosion rates on gully floors and walls are around three times the value of previous estimates, which largely characterize wind and rainsplash erosion of gully walls. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0197-9337</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-9837</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/esp.4142</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bognor Regis: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Aerial surveys ; Banks (topography) ; Cost analysis ; Data collection ; Data processing ; Erosion ; Erosion features ; Erosion rates ; Estimates ; Gullies ; Gully erosion ; Landscape ; Lasers ; lightweight drones ; Photogrammetry ; Photography ; Remote sensing ; SfM photogrammetry ; Slope ; Soil ; Soil erosion ; soil erosion monitoring ; Soil loss ; Spatial discrimination ; Spatial resolution ; Surveying ; Surveys ; Terrestrial environments ; terrestrial laser scanning ; Topography ; Topography (geology) ; Unmanned aerial vehicles ; upland gully erosion ; Wind erosion</subject><ispartof>Earth surface processes and landforms, 2017-09, Vol.42 (12), p.1860-1871</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2017 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3502-ea68595f52a0f2aa7386a928f1eb15460b801de5ce6adf82d8de6a24ffa27d473</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3502-ea68595f52a0f2aa7386a928f1eb15460b801de5ce6adf82d8de6a24ffa27d473</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9177-2588 ; 0000-0003-0110-9879</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fesp.4142$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fesp.4142$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Glendell, Miriam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McShane, Gareth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farrow, Luke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>James, Mike R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quinton, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Karen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evans, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benaud, Pia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rawlins, Barry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morgan, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Lee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kirkham, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeBell, Leon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quine, Timothy A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lark, Murray</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rickson, Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brazier, Richard E.</creatorcontrib><title>Testing the utility of structure‐from‐motion photogrammetry reconstructions using small unmanned aerial vehicles and ground photography to estimate the extent of upland soil erosion</title><title>Earth surface processes and landforms</title><description>Quantifying the extent of soil erosion at a fine spatial resolution can be time consuming and costly; however, proximal remote sensing approaches to collect topographic data present an emerging alternative for quantifying soil volumes lost via erosion. Herein we compare terrestrial laser scanning (TLS), and both unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and ground photography (GP) structure‐from‐motion (SfM) derived topography. We compare the cost‐effectiveness and accuracy of both SfM techniques to TLS for erosion gully surveying in upland landscapes, treating TLS as a benchmark. Further, we quantify volumetric soil loss estimates from upland gullies using digital surface models derived by each technique and subtracted from an interpolated pre‐erosion surface. Soil loss estimates from UAV and GP SfM reconstructions were comparable to those from TLS, whereby the slopes of the relationship between all three techniques were not significantly different from 1:1 line. Only for the TLS to GP comparison was the intercept significantly different from zero, showing that GP is more capable of measuring the volumes of very small erosion features. In terms of cost‐effectiveness in data collection and processing time, both UAV and GP were comparable with the TLS on a per‐site basis (13.4 and 8.2 person‐hours versus 13.4 for TLS); however, GP was less suitable for surveying larger areas (127 person‐hours per ha−1 versus 4.5 for UAV and 3.9 for TLS). Annual repeat surveys using GP were capable of detecting mean vertical erosion change on peaty soils. These first published estimates of whole gully erosion rates (0.077 m a−1) suggest that combined erosion rates on gully floors and walls are around three times the value of previous estimates, which largely characterize wind and rainsplash erosion of gully walls. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</description><subject>Aerial surveys</subject><subject>Banks (topography)</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Data processing</subject><subject>Erosion</subject><subject>Erosion features</subject><subject>Erosion rates</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Gullies</subject><subject>Gully erosion</subject><subject>Landscape</subject><subject>Lasers</subject><subject>lightweight drones</subject><subject>Photogrammetry</subject><subject>Photography</subject><subject>Remote sensing</subject><subject>SfM photogrammetry</subject><subject>Slope</subject><subject>Soil</subject><subject>Soil erosion</subject><subject>soil erosion monitoring</subject><subject>Soil loss</subject><subject>Spatial discrimination</subject><subject>Spatial resolution</subject><subject>Surveying</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Terrestrial environments</subject><subject>terrestrial laser scanning</subject><subject>Topography</subject><subject>Topography (geology)</subject><subject>Unmanned aerial vehicles</subject><subject>upland gully erosion</subject><subject>Wind erosion</subject><issn>0197-9337</issn><issn>1096-9837</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kc1q3DAUhUVJoJNpII8g6CYbTyT5T1qGMGkKgRSSrI3Gvho7yJKrn7be9RHyOnmdPknlmWbZ1blwP517xEHogpINJYRdgZ82BS3YB7SiRFSZ4Hl9glaEijoTeV5_RGfevxBCacHFCr09gQ-D2ePQA45h0EOYsVXYBxfbEB38-f2qnB2TjDYM1uCpt8HunRxHCG7GDlprjnTaehz94uZHqTWOZpTGQIcluEFq_AP6odXgsTQd3jsbk7zbTf2Mg8VLmlEGOOSBXwFMWOLESS9vvB00Bmd9OvUJnSqpPZz_0zV6vt0-3dxl9w9fvt5c32cyLwnLQFa8FKUqmSSKSVnnvJKCcUVhR8uiIjtOaAdlC5XsFGcd79LECqUkq7uiztfo89F3cvZ7TPmaFxudSScbKnJR87IiIlGXR6pN6bwD1UwufcTNDSXNUkyTimmWYhKaHdGfg4b5v1yzffx24P8CN9KYAQ</recordid><startdate>20170930</startdate><enddate>20170930</enddate><creator>Glendell, Miriam</creator><creator>McShane, Gareth</creator><creator>Farrow, Luke</creator><creator>James, Mike R.</creator><creator>Quinton, John</creator><creator>Anderson, Karen</creator><creator>Evans, Martin</creator><creator>Benaud, Pia</creator><creator>Rawlins, Barry</creator><creator>Morgan, David</creator><creator>Jones, Lee</creator><creator>Kirkham, Matthew</creator><creator>DeBell, Leon</creator><creator>Quine, Timothy A.</creator><creator>Lark, Murray</creator><creator>Rickson, Jane</creator><creator>Brazier, Richard E.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9177-2588</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0110-9879</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170930</creationdate><title>Testing the utility of structure‐from‐motion photogrammetry reconstructions using small unmanned aerial vehicles and ground photography to estimate the extent of upland soil erosion</title><author>Glendell, Miriam ; McShane, Gareth ; Farrow, Luke ; James, Mike R. ; Quinton, John ; Anderson, Karen ; Evans, Martin ; Benaud, Pia ; Rawlins, Barry ; Morgan, David ; Jones, Lee ; Kirkham, Matthew ; DeBell, Leon ; Quine, Timothy A. ; Lark, Murray ; Rickson, Jane ; Brazier, Richard E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a3502-ea68595f52a0f2aa7386a928f1eb15460b801de5ce6adf82d8de6a24ffa27d473</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Aerial surveys</topic><topic>Banks (topography)</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Data processing</topic><topic>Erosion</topic><topic>Erosion features</topic><topic>Erosion rates</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Gullies</topic><topic>Gully erosion</topic><topic>Landscape</topic><topic>Lasers</topic><topic>lightweight drones</topic><topic>Photogrammetry</topic><topic>Photography</topic><topic>Remote sensing</topic><topic>SfM photogrammetry</topic><topic>Slope</topic><topic>Soil</topic><topic>Soil erosion</topic><topic>soil erosion monitoring</topic><topic>Soil loss</topic><topic>Spatial discrimination</topic><topic>Spatial resolution</topic><topic>Surveying</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Terrestrial environments</topic><topic>terrestrial laser scanning</topic><topic>Topography</topic><topic>Topography (geology)</topic><topic>Unmanned aerial vehicles</topic><topic>upland gully erosion</topic><topic>Wind erosion</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Glendell, Miriam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McShane, Gareth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farrow, Luke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>James, Mike R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quinton, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Karen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evans, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benaud, Pia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rawlins, Barry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morgan, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Lee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kirkham, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeBell, Leon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quine, Timothy A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lark, Murray</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rickson, Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brazier, Richard E.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Earth surface processes and landforms</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Glendell, Miriam</au><au>McShane, Gareth</au><au>Farrow, Luke</au><au>James, Mike R.</au><au>Quinton, John</au><au>Anderson, Karen</au><au>Evans, Martin</au><au>Benaud, Pia</au><au>Rawlins, Barry</au><au>Morgan, David</au><au>Jones, Lee</au><au>Kirkham, Matthew</au><au>DeBell, Leon</au><au>Quine, Timothy A.</au><au>Lark, Murray</au><au>Rickson, Jane</au><au>Brazier, Richard E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Testing the utility of structure‐from‐motion photogrammetry reconstructions using small unmanned aerial vehicles and ground photography to estimate the extent of upland soil erosion</atitle><jtitle>Earth surface processes and landforms</jtitle><date>2017-09-30</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1860</spage><epage>1871</epage><pages>1860-1871</pages><issn>0197-9337</issn><eissn>1096-9837</eissn><abstract>Quantifying the extent of soil erosion at a fine spatial resolution can be time consuming and costly; however, proximal remote sensing approaches to collect topographic data present an emerging alternative for quantifying soil volumes lost via erosion. Herein we compare terrestrial laser scanning (TLS), and both unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and ground photography (GP) structure‐from‐motion (SfM) derived topography. We compare the cost‐effectiveness and accuracy of both SfM techniques to TLS for erosion gully surveying in upland landscapes, treating TLS as a benchmark. Further, we quantify volumetric soil loss estimates from upland gullies using digital surface models derived by each technique and subtracted from an interpolated pre‐erosion surface. Soil loss estimates from UAV and GP SfM reconstructions were comparable to those from TLS, whereby the slopes of the relationship between all three techniques were not significantly different from 1:1 line. Only for the TLS to GP comparison was the intercept significantly different from zero, showing that GP is more capable of measuring the volumes of very small erosion features. In terms of cost‐effectiveness in data collection and processing time, both UAV and GP were comparable with the TLS on a per‐site basis (13.4 and 8.2 person‐hours versus 13.4 for TLS); however, GP was less suitable for surveying larger areas (127 person‐hours per ha−1 versus 4.5 for UAV and 3.9 for TLS). Annual repeat surveys using GP were capable of detecting mean vertical erosion change on peaty soils. These first published estimates of whole gully erosion rates (0.077 m a−1) suggest that combined erosion rates on gully floors and walls are around three times the value of previous estimates, which largely characterize wind and rainsplash erosion of gully walls. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</abstract><cop>Bognor Regis</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/esp.4142</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9177-2588</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0110-9879</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0197-9337
ispartof Earth surface processes and landforms, 2017-09, Vol.42 (12), p.1860-1871
issn 0197-9337
1096-9837
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1939785609
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Aerial surveys
Banks (topography)
Cost analysis
Data collection
Data processing
Erosion
Erosion features
Erosion rates
Estimates
Gullies
Gully erosion
Landscape
Lasers
lightweight drones
Photogrammetry
Photography
Remote sensing
SfM photogrammetry
Slope
Soil
Soil erosion
soil erosion monitoring
Soil loss
Spatial discrimination
Spatial resolution
Surveying
Surveys
Terrestrial environments
terrestrial laser scanning
Topography
Topography (geology)
Unmanned aerial vehicles
upland gully erosion
Wind erosion
title Testing the utility of structure‐from‐motion photogrammetry reconstructions using small unmanned aerial vehicles and ground photography to estimate the extent of upland soil erosion
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T22%3A51%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Testing%20the%20utility%20of%20structure%E2%80%90from%E2%80%90motion%20photogrammetry%20reconstructions%20using%20small%20unmanned%20aerial%20vehicles%20and%20ground%20photography%20to%20estimate%20the%20extent%20of%20upland%20soil%20erosion&rft.jtitle=Earth%20surface%20processes%20and%20landforms&rft.au=Glendell,%20Miriam&rft.date=2017-09-30&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1860&rft.epage=1871&rft.pages=1860-1871&rft.issn=0197-9337&rft.eissn=1096-9837&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/esp.4142&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1939785609%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1939785609&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true