Share This Article:

GPS- vs. DEM-Derived Elevation Estimates from a Hardwood Dominated Forest Watershed

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:662KB) PP. 147-151
DOI: 10.4236/jgis.2010.23021    5,638 Downloads   8,700 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

Topographic attributes are often used as explanatory variables when providing spatial estimates of various environmental attribute response variables. Elevation of sampling locations can be derived from global positioning systems (GPS) or digital elevation models (DEM). Given the potential for differences in elevation among these two data sources, especially in response to forest canopy cover, our objective was to compare GPS and DEM-derived elevation values during the dormant season. A non-parametric Wilcoxon test indicated GPS elevation was higher than DEM elevation with a mean difference of 6 m. Linear regression analysis indicated that GPS and DEM elevation were well correlated (R2 = 0.71, r = 0.84, p < 0.0001). Although elevation among the two data sources differed, the strong linear relationship allows for correction of elevation values in a predictable manner.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

L. Kiser and J. Kelly, "GPS- vs. DEM-Derived Elevation Estimates from a Hardwood Dominated Forest Watershed," Journal of Geographic Information System, Vol. 2 No. 3, 2010, pp. 147-151. doi: 10.4236/jgis.2010.23021.

References

[1] M. G. Wing, A. Eklund and L. D. Kellogg, “Consumer Grade Global Positioning System (GPS) Accuracy and Reliability,” Journal of Forestry, Vol. 103, No. 4, June 2005, pp. 169173.
[2] M. G. Wing and R. Karsky, “Standard and RealTime Accuracy and Reliability of a MappingGrade GPS in a Coniferous Western Oregon Forest,” Western Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol. 21, No. 4, October 2006, pp. 222227.
[3] M. G. Wing and A. Eklund, “Performance Comparison of a LowCost Mapping Grade Global Positioning Systems (GPS) Receiver and Consumer Grade GPS Receiver under Dense Forest Canopy,” Journal of Forestry, Vol. 105, No. 1, January/February 2007, pp. 914.
[4] M. G. Wing, A. Eklund, J. Sessions and R. Karsky, “Horizontal Measurement Performance of Five Mapping Grade Global Positioning System Receiver Configurations in Several Forested Setting,” Western Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol. 23, No. 3, July 2008, pp. 166171.
[5] L. C. Kiser, J. M. Kelly and P. A. Mays, “Changes in Fo Rest Soil Carbon and Nitrogen after a ThirtyYear Interval,” Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 73, No. 1, February 2009, pp. 647653.
[6] J. M. Kelly, “Camp Branch and Cross Creek Experimental Watershed Projects,” Report Nos. TVA/ONR79/04, EPA600/779 053, 1979.
[7] M. G. Wing and A. Eklund, “Vertical Measurement Accuracy of MappingGrade Global Positioning Systems Receivers in Three Forest Setting,” Western Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol. 23, No. 2, April 2008, pp. 8388.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.