Search

Consumer-grade drone-produced digital orthoimagery is a valuable tool for conservation management and enables the low-cost monitoring of remote ecosystems. This study demonstrates the applicability of RGB orthoimagery for the assessment of forest health at the scale of individual trees in a 46-hectare plot of rare southern Appalachian red spruce forest on Whitetop Mountain, Virginia. We used photogrammetric Structure from Motion software Pix4Dmapper with drone-collected imagery to generate a mosaic for point cloud reconstruction and orthoimagery of the plot. Using 3-band RBG digital orthoimagery, we visually classified 9402 red spruce individuals, finding 8700 healthy (92.5%), 251 declining/dying (2.6%), and 451 dead (4.8%). We mapped individual spruce trees in each class and produced kernel density maps of health classes (live, dead, and dying). Our approach provided a nearly gap-free assessment of the red spruce canopy in our study site, versus a much more time-intensive field survey. Our maps provided useful information on stand mortality patterns and canopy gaps that could be used by managers to identify optimal locations for selective thinning to facilitate understory sapling regeneration. This approach, dependent mainly on an off-the-shelf drone system and visual interpretation of orthoimagery, could be applied by land managers to measure forest health in other spruce, or possibly spruce-fir, communities in the Appalachians. Our study highlights the usefulness of drone-produced orthoimagery for conservation monitoring, presenting a valid and accessible protocol for the monitoring and assessment of forest health in remote spruce, and possibly other conifer, populations. Adoption of drone-based monitoring may be especially useful in light of climate change and the possible displacement of southern Appalachian red spruce (and spruce-fir) ecosystems by the upslope migration of deciduous trees.

Vegetation heights derived from drone laser scanning (DLS), and structure from motion (SfM) photogrammetry at the Virginia Tech StREAM Lab were utilized to determine hydraulic roughness (Manning’s roughness coefficients). We determined hydraulic roughness at three spatial scales: reach, patch, and pixel. For the reach scale, one roughness value was set for the channel, and one value for the entire floodplain. For the patch scale, vegetation heights were used to classify the floodplain into grass, scrub, and small and large trees, with a single roughness value for each. The roughness values for the reach and patch methods were calibrated using a two-dimensional (2D) hydrodynamic model (HEC-RAS) and data from in situ velocity sensors. For the pixel method, we applied empirical equations that directly estimated roughness from vegetation height for each pixel of the raster (no calibration necessary). Model simulations incorporating these roughness datasets in 2D HEC-RAS were validated against water surface elevations (WSE) from seventeen groundwater wells for seven high-flow events during the Fall of 2018 and 2019, and compared to marked flood extents. The reach method tended to overestimate while the pixel method tended to underestimate the flood extent. There were no visual differences between DLS and SfM within the pixel and patch methods when comparing flood extents. All model simulations were not significantly different with respect to the well WSEs (p > 0.05). The pixel methods had the lowest WSE RMSEs (SfM: 0.136 m, DLS: 0.124 m). The other methods had RMSE values 0.01–0.02 m larger than the DLS pixel method. Models with DLS data also had lower WSE RMSEs by 0.01 m when compared to models utilizing SfM. This difference might not justify the increased cost of a DLS setup over SfM (~150,000 vs. ~2000 USD for this study), though our use of the DLS DEM to determine SfM vegetation heights might explain this minimal difference. We expect a poorer performance o

Vegetation heights derived from drone laser scanning (DLS), and structure from motion (SfM) photogrammetry at the Virginia Tech StREAM Lab were utilized to determine hydraulic roughness (Manning’s roughness coefficients). We determined hydraulic roughness at three spatial scales: reach, patch, and pixel. For the reach scale, one roughness value was set for the channel, and one value for the entire floodplain. For the patch scale, vegetation heights were used to classify the floodplain into grass, scrub, and small and large trees, with a single roughness value for each. The roughness values for the reach and patch methods were calibrated using a two-dimensional (2D) hydrodynamic model (HEC-RAS) and data from in situ velocity sensors. For the pixel method, we applied empirical equations that directly estimated roughness from vegetation height for each pixel of the raster (no calibration necessary). Model simulations incorporating these roughness datasets in 2D HEC-RAS were validated against water surface elevations (WSE) from seventeen groundwater wells for seven high-flow events during the Fall of 2018 and 2019, and compared to marked flood extents. The reach method tended to overestimate while the pixel method tended to underestimate the flood extent. There were no visual differences between DLS and SfM within the pixel and patch methods when comparing flood extents. All model simulations were not significantly different with respect to the well WSEs (p > 0.05). The pixel methods had the lowest WSE RMSEs (SfM: 0.136 m, DLS: 0.124 m). The other methods had RMSE values 0.01–0.02 m larger than the DLS pixel method. Models with DLS data also had lower WSE RMSEs by 0.01 m when compared to models utilizing SfM. This difference might not justify the increased cost of a DLS setup over SfM (~150,000 vs. ~2000 USD for this study), though our use of the DLS DEM to determine SfM vegetation heights might explain this minimal difference. We expect a poorer performance o