We investigate footprint geolocation uncertainties of a spectroradiometer mounted on an unmanned aircraft system (UAS). Two microelectromechanical systems-based inertial measurement units (IMUs) and global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receivers were used to determine the footprint location and extent of the spectroradiometer. Errors originating from the on-board GNSS/IMU sensors were propagated through an aerial data georeferencing model, taking into account a range of values for the spectroradiometer field of view (FOV), integration time, UAS flight speed, above ground level (AGL) flying height, and IMU grade. The spectroradiometer under nominal operating conditions (8 ∘ FOV, 10 m AGL height, 0.6 s integration time, and 3 m/s flying speed) resulted in footprint extent of 140 cm across-track and 320 cm along-track, and a geolocation uncertainty of 11 cm. Flying height and orientation measurement accuracy had the largest influence on the geolocation uncertainty, whereas the FOV, integration time, and flying speed had the biggest impact on the size of the footprint. Furthermore, with an increase in flying height, the rate of increase in geolocation uncertainty was found highest for a low-grade IMU. To increase the footprint geolocation accuracy, we recommend reducing flying height while increasing the FOV which compensates the footprint area loss and increases the signal strength. The disadvantage of a lower flying height and a larger FOV is a higher sensitivity of the footprint size to changing distance from the target. To assist in matching the footprint size to uncertainty ratio with an appropriate spatial scale, we list the expected ratio for a range of IMU grades, FOVs and AGL heights.

Centre for Sustainable Ecosystem Solutions School of Biological Sciences University of Wollongong Northfields Avenue Wollongong NSW 2522 Australia

Department of Remote Sensing Global Change Research Institute CAS Bělidla 986 4a CZ 60300 Brno Czech Republic

Discipline of Geography and Spatial Sciences School of Technology Environments and Design University of Tasmania Hobart TAS 7005 Australia

School of Agriculture Food and Wine Faculty of Sciences University of Adelaide Adelaide SA 5064 Australia

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Pajares G. Overview and Current Status of Remote Sensing Applications Based on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2015;81:281–330. doi: 10.14358/PERS.81.4.281. DOI

Wieneke S., Ahrends H., Damm A., Pinto F., Stadler A., Rossini M., Rascher U. Airborne based spectroscopy of red and far-red sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence: Implications for improved estimates of gross primary productivity. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016;184:654–667. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2016.07.025. DOI

Lucieer A., Malenovský Z., Veness T., Wallace L. HyperUAS-Imaging Spectroscopy from a Multirotor Unmanned Aircraft System. J. Field Robot. 2014;31:571–590. doi: 10.1002/rob.21508. DOI

Mulla D.J. Twenty five years of remote sensing in precision agriculture: Key advances and remaining knowledge gaps. Biosyst. Eng. 2013;114:358–371. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2012.08.009. DOI

Zarco-Tejada P., Morales A., Testi L., Villalobos F. Spatio-temporal patterns of chlorophyll fluorescence and physiological and structural indices acquired from hyperspectral imagery as compared with carbon fluxes measured with eddy covariance. Remote Sens. Environ. 2013;133:102–115. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2013.02.003. DOI

Burkart A., Cogliati S., Schickling A., Rascher U. A novel UAV-based ultra-light weight spectrometer for field spectroscopy. IEEE Sens. J. 2014;14:62–67. doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2013.2279720. DOI

Moreno J.F., Goulas Y., Huth A., Middleton E., Miglietta F., Mohammed G., Nedbal L., Rascher U., Verhoef W., Drusch M. Very high spectral resolution imaging spectroscopy: The Fluorescence Explorer (FLEX) mission; Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS); Beijing, China. 10–15 July 2016; pp. 264–267.

Rascher U., Alonso L., Burkart A., Cilia C., Cogliati S., Colombo R., Damm A., Drusch M., Guanter L., Hanus J., et al. Sun-induced fluorescence—A new probe of photosynthesis: First maps from the imaging spectrometer HyPlant. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015;21:4673–4684. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13017. PubMed DOI

Drusch M., Moreno J., Del Bello U., Franco R., Goulas Y., Huth A., Kraft S., Middleton E.M., Miglietta F., Mohammed G., et al. The FLuorescence EXplorer Mission Concept-ESA’s Earth Explorer 8. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2017;55:1273–1284. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2016.2621820. DOI

Wyber R., Malenovský Z., Ashcroft M.B., Osmond B., Robinson S.A. Do Daily and Seasonal Trends in Leaf Solar Induced Fluorescence Reflect Changes in Photosynthesis, Growth or Light Exposure? Remote Sens. 2017;9:604. doi: 10.3390/rs9060604. DOI

Pinto F., Damm A., Schickling A., Panigada C., Cogliati S., Müller-Linow M., Balvora A., Rascher U. Sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence from high-resolution imaging spectroscopy data to quantify spatio-temporal patterns of photosynthetic function in crop canopies. Plant Cell Environ. 2016;39:1500–1512. doi: 10.1111/pce.12710. PubMed DOI

Verrelst J., van der Tol C., Magnani F., Sabater N., Rivera J.P., Mohammed G., Moreno J. Evaluating the predictive power of sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence to estimate net photosynthesis of vegetation canopies: A scope modeling study. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016;176:139–151. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2016.01.018. DOI

Rossini M., Nedbal L., Guanter L., Ač A., Alonso L., Burkart A., Cogliati S., Colombo R., Damm A., Drusch M., et al. Red and far red Sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence as a measure of plant photosynthesis. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2015;42:1632–1639. doi: 10.1002/2014GL062943. DOI

Garzonio R., Di Mauro B., Colombo R., Cogliati S. Surface Reflectance and Sun-Induced Fluorescence Spectroscopy Measurements Using a Small Hyperspectral UAS. Remote Sensing. 2017;9:472. doi: 10.3390/rs9050472. DOI

Zeng C., King D.J., Richardson M., Shan B. Fusion of Multispectral Imagery and Spectrometer Data in UAV Remote Sensing. Remote Sens. 2017;9:696. doi: 10.3390/rs9070696. DOI

Burkart A., Aasen H., Alonso L., Menz G., Bareth G., Rascher U. Angular Dependency of Hyperspectral Measurements over Wheat Characterized by a Novel UAV Based Goniometer. Remote Sens. 2015;7:725–746. doi: 10.3390/rs70100725. DOI

Wallace L., Lucieer A., Turner D., Watson C. Error assessment and mitigation for hyper-temporal UAV-borne LiDAR surveys of forest inventory. Proce. Silvilaser. 2011:1–13.

Schaer P., Skaloud J., Landtwing S., Legat K. Accuracy Estimation for Laser Point Cloud Including Scanning Geometry; Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Mobile Mapping Technology; Padova, Italy. 29–31 May 2007.

Lichti D.D., Gordon S.J., Tipdecho T. Error Models and Propagation in Directly Georeferenced Terrestrial Laser Scanner Networks. J. Surv. Eng. 2005;131:135–142. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9453(2005)131:4(135). DOI

Gerke M., Przybilla H.J. Accuracy Analysis of Photogrammetric UAV Image Blocks: Influence of Onboard RTK-GNSS and Cross Flight Patterns. Photogrammetrie-Fernerkundung-Geoinf. 2016;2016:17–30. doi: 10.1127/pfg/2016/0284. DOI

Ruiz J.J., Diaz-Mas L., Perez F., Viguria A. Evaluating the accuracy of DEM generation algorithms from UAV imagery. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2013;40:333–337. doi: 10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-1-W2-333-2013. DOI

Harwin S., Lucieer A. Assessing the accuracy of georeferenced point clouds produced via multi-view stereopsis from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) imagery. Remote Sens. 2012;4:1573–1599. doi: 10.3390/rs4061573. DOI

Turner D., Lucieer A., McCabe M., Parkes S., Clarke I. Pushbroom hyperspectral imaging from an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)–geometric processing workflow and accuracy assessment. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2017;42:379. doi: 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W6-379-2017. DOI

Aasen H., Honkavaara E., Lucieer A., Zarco-Tejada P. Quantitative Remote Sensing at Ultra-High Resolution with UAV Spectroscopy: A Review of Sensor Technology, Measurement Procedures, and Data Correction Workflows. Remote Sens. 2018;10:1091. doi: 10.3390/rs10071091. DOI

Wallace L., Lucieer A., Watson C., Turner D. Development of a UAV-LiDAR system with application to forest inventory. Remote Sens. 2012;4:1519–1543. doi: 10.3390/rs4061519. DOI

Wilkinson B.E., Mohamed A.H., Dewitt B.A., Seedahmed G.H. A novel approach to terrestrial LiDAR georeferencing. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2010;76:683–690. doi: 10.14358/PERS.76.6.683. DOI

Zhang Y., Shen X. Direct georeferencing of airborne LiDAR data in national coordinates. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2013;84:43–51. doi: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2013.07.003. DOI

Jozkow G., Totha C., Grejner-Brzezinska D. UAS topographic mapping with velodyne LiDAR sensor. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2016;3:201–208. doi: 10.5194/isprsannals-III-1-201-2016. DOI

Li Y., Efatmaneshnik M., Dempster A.G. Attitude determination by integration of MEMS inertial sensors and GPS for autonomous agriculture applications. GPS Solut. 2012;16:41–52. doi: 10.1007/s10291-011-0207-y. DOI

Geoscience Australia. [(accessed on 16 January 2018)]; Available online: http://www.ga.gov.au/

Gautam D., Lucieer A., Malenovský Z., Watson C. Comparison of MEMS-Based and FOG-Based IMUs to Determine Sensor Pose on an Unmanned Aircraft System. J. Surv. Eng. 2017;143:4017009. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)SU.1943-5428.0000225. DOI

Jiang C., Xue L., Chang H., Yuan G., Yuan W. Signal processing of MEMS gyroscope arrays to improve accuracy using a 1st order markov for rate signal modeling. Sensors. 2012;12:1720–1737. doi: 10.3390/s120201720. PubMed DOI PMC

Bhatt D., Aggarwal P., Bhattacharya P., Devabhaktuni V. An enhanced mems error modeling approach based on nu-support vector regression. Sensors. 2012;12:9448–9466. doi: 10.3390/s120709448. PubMed DOI PMC

Zhao Y., Horemuz M., Sjöberg L.E. Stochastic modelling and analysis of IMU sensor errors. Photogram. Cartogr. Remote Sens. 2011;22:437–449.

Uysal M., Toprak A., Polat N. DEM generation with UAV Photogrammetry and accuracy analysis in Sahitler hill. Measurement. 2015;73:539–543. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2015.06.010. DOI

Harwin S., Lucieer A., Osborn J. The impact of the calibration method on the accuracy of point clouds derived using unmanned aerial vehicle multi-view stereopsis. Remote Sens. 2015;7:11933–11953. doi: 10.3390/rs70911933. DOI

McCoull C. PhD Thesis. University of Tasmania; Hobart, Australia: 2016. Calibration and Accuracy Assessments of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Laser Scanning System.

Autodesk AutoCAD. [(accessed on 16 January 2018)]; Available online: https://www.autodesk.com/products/autocad/overview.

Turner D., Lucieer A., Wallace L. Direct georeferencing of ultrahigh-resolution UAV imagery. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2014;52:2738–2745. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2013.2265295. DOI

Gabrlik P., Jelinek A., Janata P. Precise Multi-Sensor Georeferencing System for Micro UAVs. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 2016;49:170–175. doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.12.029. DOI

Chiang K.W., Tsai M.L., Chu C.H. The Development of an UAV Borne Direct Georeferenced Photogrammetric Platform for Ground Control Point Free Applications. Sensors. 2012;12:9161–9180. doi: 10.3390/s120709161. PubMed DOI PMC

NovAtel SPAN-CPT. [(accessed on 16 January 2018)]; Available online: https://www.novatel.com/products/span-gnss-inertial-systems/span-combined-systems/span-cpt/

Advanced Navigation Spatial Dual. [(accessed on 16 January 2018)]; Available online: http://www.advancednavigation.com.au/product/spatial-dual/

Lord Sensing MicroStrain. [(accessed on 16 January 2018)]; Available online: http://www.microstrain.com/inertial/3dm-gx3-35/

Von Bueren S.K., Burkart A., Hueni A., Rascher U., Tuohy M.P., Yule I.J. Deploying four optical UAV-based sensors over grassland: Challenges and limitations. Biogeosciences. 2015;12:163–175. doi: 10.5194/bg-12-163-2015. DOI

Malenovský Z., Lucieer A., King D.H., Turnbull J.D., Robinson S.A. Unmanned aircraft system advances health mapping of fragile polar vegetation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2017;8:1842–1857. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12833. DOI