remote sensing

Article
UAV-Derived Multispectral Bathymetry
Lorenzo Rossi 1, *, Irene Mammi 2 and Filippo Pelliccia 1
1 GEOCOSTE, Via Corsi, 19, 50141 Firenze, Italy; info@geocoste.com
2 INGV, Via Cesare Battisti, 53, 56125 Pisa, Italy; irene.mammi@ingv.it
* Correspondence: lrossi@geocoste.com




Received: 18 October 2020; Accepted: 23 November 2020; Published: 27 November 2020


Abstract: Bathymetry is considered an important component in marine applications as several coastal

erosion monitoring and engineering projects are carried out in this field. It is traditionally acquired
via shipboard echo sounding, but nowadays, multispectral satellite imagery is also commonly applied
using different remote sensing-based algorithms. Satellite-Derived Bathymetry (SDB) relates the
surface reflectance of shallow coastal waters to the depth of the water column. The present study
shows the results of the application of Stumpf and Lyzenga algorithms to derive the bathymetry
for a small area using an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), also known as a drone, equipped with
a multispectral camera acquiring images in the same WorldView-2 satellite sensor spectral bands.
A hydrographic Multibeam Echosounder survey was performed in the same period in order to
validate the method’s results and accuracy. The study area was approximately 0.5 km2 and located in
Tuscany (Italy). Because of the high percentage of water in the images, a new methodology was also
implemented for producing a georeferenced orthophoto mosaic. UAV multispectral images were
processed to retrieve bathymetric data for testing different band combinations and evaluating the
accuracy as a function of the density and quantity of sea bottom control points. Our results indicate
that UAV-Derived Bathymetry (UDB) permits an accuracy of about 20 cm to be obtained in bathymetric
mapping in shallow waters, minimizing operative expenses and giving the possibility to program a
coastal monitoring surveying activity. The full sea bottom coverage obtained using this methodology
permits detailed Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) comparable to a Multibeam Echosounder survey,
and can also be applied in very shallow waters, where the traditional hydrographic approach requires
hard fieldwork and presents operational limits.

Keywords: coastal monitoring; bathymetry; UAV; drone; multispectral camera

1. Introduction
Worldwide coastal areas are dynamic environments, constantly evolving and being reshaped due
to natural processes [1] and human activities [2]. The factors responsible for their change may be
described as geological and geomorphological, hydrodynamic, biological, climatic, and anthropogenic [3].
Taking place over a range of timescales, the interaction of these factors causes dynamic coastal rebuilding,
referred to as coastal morphodynamics. The coastal system is also a dynamic complex of sensitive
elements and typically responds in a nonlinear morphological manner [4]. Coastal environments host
key infrastructures and ecosystems. Additionally, about 40% of the world’s global population live
within 100 km of the coast and around 10% live in areas that are less than 10 m above sea level [5],
so these environments represent a critical part of the economies of many nations bordering the sea,
particularly subsistence economies [6].
Monitoring, evaluating, and reporting activities and adaptive management approaches are widely
recognized as fundamental components of any effective coastal protection policy [7]. Implemented
management measures are also important in terms of understanding how planning and decision-making

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897; doi:10.3390/rs12233897 www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897 2 of 20

in adaptive maritime spatial planning may be improved [8]. Coastal zone monitoring is an essential
process for sustainable coastal management and environmental protection. Regular monitoring, the
assessment of coastal morphodynamics, and identification of the processes influencing sediment
transport, erosion, or accretion are thus increasingly important for developing a better understanding
of changes and evolutionary trends in these particular systems [9] and have important roles in their
dynamic behavior [10,11]. High spatial resolution (<1 m) remotely sensed images and Digital Elevation
Models (DEMs) are widely used in marine environment monitoring [12] and are important tools for
improving Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) studies.
Nowadays, three-dimensional data mainly acquired by Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging
(LiDAR) [13] and with Structure from Motion (SfM) [14] photogrammetry applied to photographs
captured from unmanned aerial vehicles or systems (UAVs and UASs, respectively) [15–17] are the
most frequently used aerial survey technologies for emerged beaches and coasts [18].
Since at least the 1980s, the bathymetric data demand has also increased considerably due to
the upgrade of marine chart navigation, exploration of marine resources, environmental protection,
and coastal erosion or defense projects [19]. Bathymetry is one of the key factors used by scientists,
hydrographers, and decision-makers operating in coastal zones [20] and it provides useful information
on the ecological and geomorphological processes. Accurate and reliable bathymetry information is
important for coastal erosion studies, maritime navigation, the mapping and monitoring of benthic
habits, dredging planning, and coastal management [21]. Bathymetric surveys are generally performed
with Single beam Echosounder (SbEs) and Multibeam Echosounder (MbEs) technology, to obtain more
detail [22,23]. Such an approach requires treacherous work in the field and is extremely expensive and
laborious, referring to shallow and wide water areas [24]. An MbEs survey of 1 km2 in a shallow water
area would take approximately 10 operative days and cost up to EUR 10.000. Moreover, there are
complications regarding survey vessel mob/demob, permits, and sea conditions. At less than a c.a. 2 m
depth, an MbEs survey is also limited [25] because of its characteristics and usually, the bathymetry is
carried out with a small boat equipped with an SbEs, an aquatic unmanned surface vehicle [26], or a
GPS-RTK topographic survey down to a c.a. 1 m depth near the shoreline.
Airborne Laser Bathymetry (ALB), which is an active remote sensing technique for capturing shallow
water areas using green laser light, has rapidly evolved in recent years [27]. ALB and high-resolution
satellite images have been increasingly applied for coastal monitoring and bathymetric mapping,
even though the traditional approach is a hydrographic survey with echo sounders. ALB mainly
involves airborne acquisition and can measure topography in addition to bathymetry.
Satellite-Derived Bathymetry (SDB) conducted through multispectral satellite image processing is
the most recently developed method for surveying shallow waters and has proven itself as a useful
reconnaissance and planning tool for ocean mapping, although it provides bathymetry products
at a coarser spatial resolution compared to traditional acoustic surveying (e.g., MbEs) or ALB [28].
The problem of estimating water depths from remote sensing data has a relatively long history. The first
application was conducted in 1975, when the sea bottom topography in the Bahamas was calculated
to a depth of about 20 m by NASA using Landsat 1 satellite multispectral images. Since the early
2000s, physics-based radiative transfer models have become a popular means of determining the
bathymetry of coastal regions using high-resolution satellite imagery. SDB has provided a cost- and
time-effective solution for the determination of the bottom morphology in shallow water areas [29,30]
and the accuracy is improved, especially with the use of recent high-resolution satellite sensors, such as
DigitalGlobe’s WorldView-2 and -3 (WV2-3) and Quick Bird [31,32]. WorldView-2 has a resolution
of 50 cm (panchromatic) and 2 m (8 multispectral bands). In addition to the four standard bands
(blue, green, red, and near-infrared), the imagery also contains four colors (red edge, coastal, yellow,
and near-infrared 2). In the last five years, Sentinel-2A/B data from the Copernicus program have also
become available. These data are free, in contrast to data from commercial satellites, and the results
obtained in the SDB field are promising, especially over large areas [33,34].
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897 3 of 20

SDB methods can be grouped into empirical, semi-analytic, and physical-based approaches [35].
The methodology relates the surface reflectance of shallow coastal waters to the depth of the water
column. Different visible wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation can penetrate the water column and
can be reflected from the sea bottom at different depths, which is the premise for bathymetry-derived
multispectral imagery [36]. Light with longer wavelengths is absorbed more quickly than that with
shorter wavelengths. Because of this, the higher energy light with short wavelengths, such as blue,
is able to penetrate more deeply. The use of passive sensor data in bathymetry is also affected by
water turbidity and bottom signals [37] and satellite images are complicated by atmospheric correction
because the wavelengths measured at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) are influenced by the composition
of the atmosphere [38].
Many empirical models have been studied for water depth estimation relating to image pixel
values with the bottom depth. One of the most used algorithms was proposed by Lyzenga [39–41],
and the model was based on the radiance model for water, whereby the radiance received could
be calculated as a linear function of the reflected radiance and an exponential function of the water
depth. Jupp [42] introduced a method for first determining the depth of penetration (DOP) zones for
every band and then for calibrating depths within these zones. Stumpf [43] proposed an algorithm
using a log-band ratio of reflectance, contrary to the standard linear transform algorithm, reducing the
number of parameters in the equation. The most accurate results gathered for bathymetric mapping
for satellite multispectral approaches show, when water depths are within 15 m, a relative depth error
of approximately 10% [44] or even better, as in recent studies [20,34]. Multispectral airborne data have
also been used to map bathymetry in rivers [45].
In the last ten years, the rapid development and growth of UAVs as remote sensing platforms, as well as
advances in the miniaturization of instrumentation and data systems, have resulted in an increasing uptake
of this technology in environmental and remote sensing science communities [46]. Nowadays, UAVs are
the fastest monitoring systems for terrestrial and emerged coastal areas [47–49] and the elaboration of
ortho-images represents a useful tool for the study of the territory and environment [50]. Researchers
have proposed UAV-based solutions for almost any conceivable problem, but the greatest impact will
likely be in applications that exploit the unique advantages of the technology: work in dangerous
or difficult-to-access areas; high spatial resolution and/or frequent measurements of environmental
phenomena; the deployment of novel sensing technology over small to moderate spatial scales [51].
The main advantages of this technology are its high accuracy, full coverage of the surveyed area, and high
degree of operational flexibility, as well as the possibility to deliver high temporal and spatial resolution
image information in a short period of time [52]. Drones are now a valuable source of data for mapping
and 3D modeling and low-cost and are easily transportable carriers able to collect data in a short period of
time. The main fields of application are precision agricultural analysis, archaeological surveying, and land
topography or coastal monitoring [53].
Several scientific studies have assessed the accuracy of UAV-borne remote sensing for seabed
mapping or derivation of the water depth using different approaches and methodologies, such as
small topo-bathymetric laser profilers [54,55], SfM and photogrammetry [56–59], RGB images [60–62],
video techniques or fluid lensing technology [63,64], and, in gravel bed clear river water, multispectral
linear transform models [65,66] or hyperspectral data [67]. All of these methods have weaknesses and
strengths in bathymetric applications with a low DEM accuracy and results that cannot be used to obtain
a detailed 3D terrain model are useful for coastal monitoring programs or marine engineering projects.
Over the last few years, small drones, in combination with cost-efficient and lightweight RGB
cameras, have become a standard tool for typical photogrammetric tasks. Multispectral sensors,
in contrast, have long been too heavy for use on these platforms, but recently, complex high-end and
lightweight multispectral sensors for UAV have become commercially available [68].
In this article, we investigate the capabilities and discuss promising results obtained from a field
test of one of these commercial sensors, mounted on a drone, for its applicability to hydrographic
tasks. This manuscript is an extended conference paper [69], where a new methodology for remote
 Remote Sens. 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897 4 of 20

Bathymetry. In this paper, the introduction, discussion, and conclusions have been improved and a
detailed review of UAV bathymetry research has been incorporated. A deeper analysis of the
literature
sensing review in the
bathymetry form of the
is presented stateaofUAV
using the has also been
equipped added,
with in order tomultispectral
a professional compare the results
camera.
with global
Images were literature.
processed The study was
by applying also implemented
algorithms for remotebysensing
using Lyzenga’s method.
normally used A side-by-side
in Satellite-Derived
analysis of bathymetry
Bathymetry. derived
In this paper, from these new
the introduction, methodologies,
discussion, UAV-Derived
and conclusions Bathymetry
have been improved (UDB),
and a
and satellite images are given and the depth accuracy was verified through a comparison
detailed review of UAV bathymetry research has been incorporated. A deeper analysis of the literature with an in
situ field
review hydrographic
in the form of the survey.
state of The scope
the has alsoofbeen
this added,
study was to undertake
in order to comparea first evaluation
the results withof the
global
potential of UDB for coastal monitoring activity and evaluate whether images acquired
literature. The study was also implemented by using Lyzenga’s method. A side-by-side analysis of by a low-
cost UAV and
bathymetry multispectral
derived from these camera could become useful
new methodologies, tools in supporting
UAV-Derived Bathymetrycoastal
(UDB),management
and satellite
and studies.
images are given and the depth accuracy was verified through a comparison with an in situ field
hydrographic survey. The scope of this study was to undertake a first evaluation of the potential of
2. Materials and Methods
UDB for coastal monitoring activity and evaluate whether images acquired by a low-cost UAV and
multispectral camera could become useful tools in supporting coastal management and studies.
2.1. Area of Study
2. Materials
For thisand Methods
research, an area of about 400 × 300 m was selected. The area is located on the coast on
the Tyrrhenian sea in the south of San Vincenzo town (LI) in Italy, along a 9 km sand beach (Figure
2.1. Area of Study by cusps, sandbars, and some beach rock outcrops and extending from the shoreline
1) characterized
to about theresearch,
For this beginning anof theofPosidonia
area about 400Oceanica
× 300 m wasedge.selected.
The internal limitis of
The area Posidonia
located on theOceanica
coast on
the Tyrrhenian sea in the south of San Vincenzo town (LI) in Italy, along a 9 km sand beach (Figure a1)
meadow, which is a seagrass species that is endemic to the Mediterranean Sea, is located at about
−10 m depth. by
characterized Several
cusps,morphological
sandbars, anddata
someare available
beach for this area
rock outcrops andand were mainly
extending deduced
from the fromto
shoreline
erosion
about themonitoring
beginning ofstudies conducted
the Posidonia by the
Oceanica localThe
edge. municipality and
internal limit of the University
Posidonia of Florence.
Oceanica meadow,
which is a seagrass species that is endemic to the Mediterranean Sea, is located at about a −10 am
Moreover, in the same period in which we needed to test the methodology, we had to perform
hydrographic
depth. Several survey for a beach
morphological datanourishment
are availableproject.
for this area and were mainly deduced from erosion
The coordinate
monitoring reference system
studies conducted by the used
local in this work was
municipality WGS84/UTM
and the University32 North and theMoreover,
of Florence. Military
Geographic Institute (IGM) was used as the vertical national datum. This geodetical
in the same period in which we needed to test the methodology, we had to perform a hydrographic reference system
was used for all of the surveys
survey for a beach nourishment project.and image processing conducted in the study.

Figure 1. Location map, with the study area being located in the red rectangle.
Figure 1. Location map, with the study area being located in the red rectangle.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897 5 of 20

The coordinate reference system used in this work was WGS84/UTM 32 North and the Military
Geographic Institute (IGM) was used as the vertical national datum. This geodetical reference system
was used for all of the surveys and image processing conducted in the study.

2.2. Empirical Satellite-Derived Bathymetry (SDB) Models

The study was conducted using two algorithms from the literature, which had previously only
been applied to satellite imagery. They were applied to UAV multispectral imagery, without modifying
or implementing the equations.
The Stumpf Relative Water Depth algorithm (RWD) linearizes the relationship between band
spectral values and the sea bottom depth with a log-transformation and uses a log-band ratio to reduce
the number of parameters in the equation and generate depth classes of relative water depth which can
then be rescaled to real bathymetric data by using real depth values. In this way, the error due to the
variation of the radiation in the atmosphere and the water column is reduced and is less sensitive to
sea bottom variation [70]. The bottom albedo-independent nature of the algorithm means that seafloor
covered with dark seagrass or bright sand is shown to be at the same depth when they are at the
same depth.
This model applies the fundamental principle that every band has a different level of water body
absorption. The RWD algorithm is described in Equation (1):

ln(nRw (λi ))
Z = m1   − m0 , (1)
ln nRw (λj )

where Z is the derived depth (m), m1 is a tunable constant to scale the ratio to depth, and n is a fixed
constant for all areas. A positive large number is chosen to keep the ratio positive for any reflectance
value. m0 is the offset for a depth of 0 m (Z = 0) and Rw is the observed radiance for bands λi and λj .
The Stumpf model was processed using the ENVI™ 5 suite.
By also utilizing the newly available yellow and coastal-blue spectral bands present in satellite and
UAV multispectral sensors, an optimal band ratio analysis (OBRA) method was tested, which compared
different pairs of wavelengths (coastal-blue/green and yellow/green) in order to determine the best
solution for the study area. These ratio combination results were compared with the more traditional
blue/green and green/red combinations. Initially, the water depth results were relative, since they
do not depict absolute depths (the results are scaled from zero to one). The intent of these results
is to provide a general feel for the bathymetry; they are not to be used for navigational purposes.
Calibration with real sea bottom depth values was then requested to scale the previous values, in order
to produce a bathymetric map. In our elaboration, a density slice at spectral reflectance intervals was
computed and calibrated with real survey depths, testing a different number of Sea Bottom Control
Points (SBCPs).
The equations developed by Lyzenga are based on the fact that sea-surface radiation is
approximately a linear function of bottom reflectance and an exponential function of water depth.
He used an albedo-independent method to derive a bathymetric map from a multispectral scene.
The method considers the exponential relationship of light attenuation through a column of water
to develop a linear transformation function that relates the observed radiance to the water depth.
Lyzenga attempted to account for variability in bottom type by using multiple spectral bands and a
rotational matrix. Theoretically, the numbers of significantly different bottom types and water masses
for which this algorithm accounts are directly proportional to the number of bands used, implying that
Worldview-2 imagery, with 8 bands, should produce more accurate results over heterogeneous waters
than conventional multispectral satellites.
Equation (2) is the algorithm for the log-linear inversion model:
XN
Z = m0 + mi ln[L(λi ) − L∞ (λi )], (2)
i=1
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897 6 of 20

where Z is the derived depth (m); m0 , mi (i = 0,1, . . . , N) are the constant coefficients for N spectral
bands; L(λi ) is the remote sensing radiance after atmospheric and sun-glint corrections for spectral
band λi ; L∞ (λi ) is the deep-water radiance for spectral band λi . The constants are usually determined
by a multiple linear regression. In the case of shallow water, the radiance observed by the satellite
consists
Remote Sens.of2020,
four12,components: atmospheric scattering; surface reflection, in-water volume scattering;
x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20
bottom reflection.
In Lyzenga’s1981
In Lyzenga’s 1981correction
correction method,
method, sea-surface
sea-surface or atmospheric
or atmospheric scattering
scattering is implicitly
is implicitly assumed
assumed to be homogeneous over the target area and in Lyzenga’s 2006 model, they
to be homogeneous over the target area and in Lyzenga’s 2006 model, they are expected to vary from are expected to
vary
pixelfrom pixel
to pixel and tovariations
pixel and are
variations
linearlyare linearly
related related
to the to the
radiance of radiance of the near-infrared
the near-infrared band. ArcGIS band.
and
ArcGIS
ENVI™and 5 were ENVI™ 5 were
also used foralso
dataused for data processing.
processing.

2.3. Satellite
2.3. SatelliteData
DataProcessing
Processing
For the
For the Satellite-Derived
Satellite-DerivedBathymetry
Bathymetry(SDB)
(SDB)remote
remotesensing
sensingprocessing,
processing,we
weused
used aa WV2
WV2 image
image
dataset (Figure 2) acquired on 13 December 2016 (panchromatic 50 cm res + 8 multispectral bands
dataset (Figure 2) acquired on 13 December 2016 (panchromatic 50 cm res + 8 multispectral bands 2
2m
m res).
res).

Figure 2.
Figure Satellite-DerivedBathymetry
2. Satellite-Derived Bathymetry(SDB)
(SDB)and
andthe
theWorldView-2
WorldView-2 (WV2)
(WV2) RGB
RGB image
image showing
showing the
the
studyarea
study area position.
position.

A set
A setofofGround
GroundControl
ControlPoints
Points (GCPs),
(GCPs), taken
taken from
from thethe regional
regional cartography,
cartography, werewere
usedused for
for the
the satellite image ortho-rectification and processed with the rational polynomial functions
satellite image ortho-rectification and processed with the rational polynomial functions model. To model.
To preserve
preserve the the original
original radiometric
radiometric data,
data, thethe nearestneighbor
nearest neighborresampling
resamplingmethod
methodwaswasadopted.
adopted.
Finally, thresholding on band 7 (near-infrared 1) was performed to mask out the land and
Finally, thresholding on band 7 (near-infrared 1) was performed to mask out the land and the Stumpf the Stumpf
SDB method was applied using 186 SBCPs distributed across the entire c.a. 4 km
SDB method was applied using 186 SBCPs distributed across the entire c.a. 4 km area and selectedarea and selected
from the
from the hydrographic
hydrographic survey
survey dataset.
dataset. The
The processing
processing steps
steps of
of generating
generating bathymetric
bathymetric maps
maps using
using
SDB are illustrated in Figure
SDB are illustrated in Figure 3. 3.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897 7 of 20

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20

Figure 3. Satellite-Derived Bathymetry (SDB) image processing sequence.

2.4. UAV Multispectral Survey

For the UAVFigure survey, a HexaCopter Bathymetry
3. Satellite-Derived drone equipped with aprocessing
(SDB) image light multispectral
sequence. camera, MAIA
WV, and a log recordingFigure 3. Satellite-Derived Bathymetry (SDB) image processing sequence.were used (Figure
GPS for Post Processing Kinematic (PPK) data elaboration
2.4. UAV Multispectral
4). The camera has an array Surveyof nine 1.2 Mpixel sensors (8 multispectral + 1 RGB) acquiring images in
the VIS-NIR
2.4. UAV spectrum
Multispectral
For the UAV from
Survey
survey, 390 to 950 nm.
a HexaCopter droneTheequipped
spectral bands
with ahavelight the same wavelength
multispectral camera, intervals
MAIA WV, of
the WV2
and aFor satellite
logthe
recording sensor—433–875
GPS for nm.
Post Processing In addition,
Kinematic an RGB
(PPK) color image is available live during
UAV survey, a HexaCopter drone equipped withdata elaboration
a light multispectralwere used
camera,(Figure
MAIA 4).
capture.
The camera CMOS
has sensors
an array settled
of nine in
1.2MAIA
Mpixel have 1280(8×multispectral
sensors 960 pixels and + 1the
RGB)dimension
acquiring ofimages
each pixel
in is
the
WV, and a log recording GPS for Post Processing Kinematic (PPK) data elaboration were used (Figure
3.75
VIS-NIR× 3.75 μm.
spectrumThe camera has an exposure interval of 0.1–50 ms, with a typical exposure time of 1
4). The camera has from 390 of
an array to nine
950 nm. The spectral
1.2 Mpixel sensorsbands have the same
(8 multispectral + 1wavelength
RGB) acquiring intervals of the
images in
ms, and
WV2 uses global
satellite shutter sensors.
sensor—433–875 Inaddition,
this way,an it is not color
necessary toisstabilize it live
withduring
gimbal,capture.
which
the VIS-NIR spectrum from 390nm. to 950In nm. The spectral RGB bands haveimage the available
same wavelength intervals of
is indispensable when using rolling shutter sensors, in order to avoid distortion, crawling, and
CMOS
the WV2 sensors settled
satellite in MAIA have 1280
sensor—433–875 nm. × In960 pixels and
addition, an the
RGB dimension
color image of each pixel is 3.75
is available × 3.75
live µm.
during
blurring
The camera pixels
has in
an the images.
exposure In cameras
interval of that
0.1–50 use
ms, a
withglobal
a shutter
typical sensor,
exposure all
time the
of 1 pixels
ms, that
and make
uses up
global
capture. CMOS sensors settled in MAIA have 1280 × 960 pixels and the dimension of each pixel is
an image
shutter are captured
sensors. In this at the
way, same
it is time. Thistomeans
notexposure
necessary thatit the
stabilize withimage
gimbal,will be “frozen”, minimalizing
3.75 × 3.75 μm. The camera has an interval of 0.1–50 ms, with which
a typicalis indispensable
exposure timewhen of 1
the
using blur effect.
rolling When
shutter using
sensors, multispectral
in order to cameras
avoid with
distortion,drones, this
crawling, feature
and assumes
blurring great
pixels in importance
the images.
ms, and uses global shutter sensors. In this way, it is not necessary to stabilize it with gimbal, which
as cameras
In the shotsthat
take place
use in motion.
a global shutter sensor, all the pixels that make up
is indispensable when using rolling shutter sensors, in order to an image
avoid are captured
distortion, at the same
crawling, and
time. MAIA’s
This proprietary
means that the imagewill
image pre-processing
be “frozen”, software allows
minimalizing the radial
blur and When
effect. geometrical
using distortion in
multispectral
blurring pixels in the images. In cameras that use a global shutter sensor, all the pixels that make up
the raw with
cameras images to bethis
drones, corrected. It also allows every single band image to be combined into one
an image are captured at feature
the same assumes greatmeans
time. This importance
that the as the
imageshotswilltakebeplace in motion.
“frozen”, minimalizing
multispectral file with pixel–pixel convergence.
the blur effect. When using multispectral cameras with drones, this feature assumes great importance
as the shots take place in motion.
MAIA’s proprietary image pre-processing software allows radial and geometrical distortion in
the raw images to be corrected. It also allows every single band image to be combined into one
multispectral file with pixel–pixel convergence.

Figure 4. The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) used for the survey, equipped with a MAIA
Figure 4. The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) used for the survey, equipped with a MAIA
multispectral camera.
multispectral camera.

MAIA’s proprietary image pre-processing software allows radial and geometrical distortion in
the raw images to be corrected. It also allows every single band image to be combined into one
multispectral
Figure 4. file
Thewith pixel–pixel
Unmanned convergence.
Aerial Vehicle (UAV) used for the survey, equipped with a MAIA
multispectral camera.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897 8 of 20
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20

The UAV flight was performed in April 2018 and 12 multispectral images were taken at a 150 m
The UAV flight was performed in April 2018 and 12 multispectral images were taken at a 150 m
height, with about 10% overlap (Figure 5). The run was conducted in good weather on a non windy
height, with about 10% overlap (Figure 5). The run was conducted in good weather on a non windy
day in the early hours of the morning, in order to reduce the sun’s glint.
day in the early hours of the morning, in order to reduce the sun’s glint.

Figure 5. UAV flight plan in the study area, with the position of the two buoys and three Ground
Figure 5. UAV flight plan in the study area, with the position of the two buoys and three Ground
Control Points (GCPs) on the beach marked by red circles.
Control Points (GCPs) on the beach marked by red circles.
2.5. UAV Data Processing
2.5. UAV Data Processing
During a low altitude flight, as for a UAV, this sun effect produces a perturbation on the water
During
surface that isa low altitude
difficult flight, as
to correct. Thefordata
a UAV,
werethis sun effect
elaborated produces
using a perturbation
the Hedley method [71] on the water
to reduce
surface that is difficult to correct. The data were elaborated using the Hedley method [71] to reduce
this effect.
this effect.
Because of the high percentage of water present in all the acquired images, a traditional Structure
Because
for Motion of the
(SfM) high percentage
technique and image of bundle
water present in allcould
adjustment the acquired
not be usedimages, a traditional
to produce Structure
the orthophoto.
fordifferent
A Motion methodology
(SfM) technique had toandbe image
applied. bundle adjustment
The camera ground could not be
footprint was used to produce
verified the
on the land
orthophoto.
using a GPS-RTK A different
survey,methodology had to be
and the size resulted inapplied.
96 × 72 m The camera
taken fromground footprint
a nadiral shot. was verified
on theToland usingthese
address a GPS-RTK
issues, we survey, and theansize
developed resultedsolution
empirical in 96 × 72 m taken fromthe
georeferencing a nadiral
imagesshot.
with a
To address these issues, we developed an empirical solution georeferencing
simple calculation programmed by the authors. By knowing the theoretical picture footprint sizes and the images with a
simple calculation
their position from programmed
the internal PPK by GPS
the authors.
and using Byheading
knowing andthe theoretical
motion angle picture footprintin
values recorded sizes
the
and
UAVtheir position flight,
control-unit from the we internal PPK GPS
could calculate andfinal
their using heading
planar and motion
deformation. Theangle
GPSvalues recorded
processing was
in the UAVwith
conducted control-unit
Leica LGO flight, we could
software calculate
using a Rinex their
filefinal
of theplanar
nearestdeformation.
GPS national Thenetwork
GPS processing
station.
was
A conducted
final with GeoTIFF
multispectral Leica LGO software using
image-mosaic wasaproduced.
Rinex file The of the nearest
spatial GPS national
accuracy was tested network
using
station.
two sea A final multispectral
control points, represented GeoTIFF byimage-mosaic
two buoys equippedwas produced.
with GPS Thethat
spatial accuracy
recorded was tested
the position in
using two sea
real-time. Onecontrol
of theirpoints, represented
instantaneous by twoisbuoys
positions shown equipped
in Figurewith GPSred
5 with that recorded
circles. Thethe position
other three
in real-time.
ground Onepoints
control of theirwereinstantaneous
located on thepositions
emerged is shown
beach in Figure
near 5 with redA
the shoreline. circles. The other
maximum three
difference
ground
of 2.8 mcontrol
between points
thesewere
points’ located on the
position andemerged
relative beach
image near
pixelthewas shoreline.
found. A maximum difference
of 2.8For
m between these points’
this processing, position
empirical and relative image
Satellite-Derived pixel was
Bathymetry (SDB)found.
methods were applied with
UAVFor this processing,
multispectral images, empirical
and were Satellite-Derived
therefore renamed Bathymetry
UDB. (SDB) methods were applied with
UAVFor multispectral
UAV bathymetry images,calibration,
and were therefore
a differentrenamed
numberUDB. of Sea Bottom Control Points (SBCPs) were
testedFor UAV
(50, 200,bathymetry
and 500). These calibration,
points awere
different
chosen number
so as toof be
Seauniformly
Bottom Control Pointsover
distributed (SBCPs) were
the whole
tested (50,different
area with 200, andgrid 500).cell
These points
values, were chosen
according to the so as to
three be uniformly
SBCP datasets. distributed over the whole
area with
Figuredifferent grid the
6 illustrates cell steps
values,
of according
generatingtobathymetric
the three SBCP mapsdatasets.
using UDB.
Figure 6 illustrates the steps of generating bathymetric maps using UDB.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897 9 of 20

Figure
Figure6.
6.UAV-Derived
UAV-Derived Bathymetry
Bathymetry (UDB)
(UDB) image processing sequence.

Figure 77presents
Figure Figure
presents anan6. UAV-Derived
example
exampleof one Bathymetry
of of the of
one the(UDB)
twelve RGB image
images
twelve RGBprocessing
imagessequence.
acquired with the UAV
acquired multispectral
with the UAV
camera (a) andcamera
multispectral the UDB(a) map (b) UDB
and the insidemap
the study area,the
(b) inside performed by performed
study area, applying Stumpf’s model.
by applying At this
Stumpf’s
point,Figure
the 7 presents
results were an example
relative, since of did
they onenot of represent
the twelve RGB water
absolute images acquired
depths. with
Instead, the colors
warm UAV
model. At this point, the results were relative, since they did not represent absolute water depths.
multispectral
indicate shallowcamera (a)and
andcold
waterindicate the ones
UDB map (b) inside the study area, performed isby applying Stumpf’s
Instead, warm colors shallowawater
greater anddepth,
coldand
onesthe emerged
a greater beachand
depth, masked with
the emerged abeach
black
model.
color. At this
The with point,
background the results were relative, since they did not represent absolute water depths.
is masked a black image is the
color. The WV2.
background image is the WV2.
Instead, warm colors indicate shallow water and cold ones a greater depth, and the emerged beach
is masked with a black color. The background image is the WV2.

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Example of one

Figure (a)of
one twelveUAV
oftwelve UAV RGBRGBimages of 96
images 9672×m72(a)mand
of × (a) aand
UDB
(b) relative
a UDB water water
relative depth
map inmap
depth the in
study area acquired
the study using the
area acquired Stumpf
using method
the Stumpf (b). (b).
method
Figure 7. Example of one of twelve UAV RGB images of 96 × 72 m (a) and a UDB relative water
depth map in the study area acquired using the Stumpf method (b).
2.6. In Situ Bathymetric Survey
Four days of calm sea after the flight with the drone, a traditional hydrographic survey was
conducted in the area using an SbEs for very shallow waters and an MbEs up to a −12 m depth (Figure
Remote
8a). ForSens.
this2020, 12, 3897
work, a boat equipped with an R2Sonic 2022 multibeam mounted pole, Teledyne Mahrs 10 of 20

motion sensor/gyro, GPS RTK, and Hypack2018 acquisition software was used (Figure 8b). The
survey was Bathymetric
2.6. In Situ carried out in the absence of wind and with calm seas and was conducted and calibrated
Survey
according to IHO S-44 specifications [23], in order to guarantee the accuracy of the measurements.
FromFour days ofacalm
this survey, 3 × 3sea after the
m DEM flight
of the sea with
bottomthewas
drone, a traditional
finally produced.hydrographic
The same geodesysurvey of was
the
conducted in the area using an SbEs for very shallow waters and an MbEs
UAV survey was applied, and the measurements were also corrected for the low tide present in up to a −12 m depth
this
(Figure 8a). For this work, a boat equipped with an R2Sonic 2022 multibeam mounted pole, Teledyne
area.
MahrsThemotion
surveysensor/gyro,
shows that GPS RTK,morphological
the main and Hypack2018 acquisition
variations software
in the area arewas used in
located (Figure 8b).
the area
The survey was carried out in the absence of wind and with calm seas and was conducted
limited by the shoreline and the surf zone down to a 4 m depth. From a 5 m depth, the bottom slope and calibrated
according
is to IHO
more regular, withS-44some
specifications
irregularity[23],
dueinto
order to guarantee
the presence the accuracy
of Posidonia of themeadow
Oceanica measurements.
at the
From this survey, a 3 × 3 m DEM of the sea bottom was finally produced. The
deeper edge. The bathymetric survey dataset was used for verification of the accuracy of the same geodesy of the UAV
method
survey was applied, and
and validation of the results. the measurements were also corrected for the low tide present in this area.

(a) (b)
Figure 8.
Figure (a)2018
8. (a) 2018 real
real bathymetric
bathymetric survey mapmap of
of the
thestudy
studyarea
areaand
andthe
theposition
positionofofa acentral profile
central in
profile
blue. Depth is expressed in meters. (b) The boat used for the survey, with the Multibeam
in blue. Depth is expressed in meters. (b) The boat used for the survey, with the Multibeam Echosounder
(MbEs) mounted
Echosounder on the
(MbEs) pole with
mounted the pole
on the GPS.with the GPS.

The survey shows that the main morphological variations in the area are located in the area
3. Results
limited by the shoreline and the surf zone down to a 4 m depth. From a 5 m depth, the bottom slope is
moreUAV- andwith
regular, satellite
some(SAT)-derived bathymetries
irregularity due fromofmultispectral
to the presence images were
Posidonia Oceanica compared
meadow to the
at the deeper
real bathymetry
edge. performed
The bathymetric in the
survey studywas
dataset area, where
used about 28,000ofpoints
for verification were acquired
the accuracy during and
of the method the
hydrographic survey.
validation of the results.
The research was initially conducted by comparing satellite- and UAV-derived bathymetries
obtained
3. Resultsfrom multispectral images, using the ratio log-transformation algorithm. Figure 9 shows a
scatter plot of Satellite-Derived Bathymetry using the Stumpf algorithm and the real points dataset
UAV- and satellite (SAT)-derived bathymetries from multispectral images were compared to the
of the water depths. The plot shows a point dispersion higher in the surf zone and growing with the
real bathymetry performed in the study area, where about 28,000 points were acquired during the
sea depth. In the deeper part of the profile, a poor correlation may be explained by the inaccuracy of
hydrographic survey.
the methodology because of the lower electromagnetic radiation efficiency; the dispersive data
The research was initially conducted by comparing satellite- and UAV-derived bathymetries
pattern in the nearshore area were caused by morphological variation due to the gap of time between
obtained from multispectral images, using the ratio log-transformation algorithm. Figure 9 shows a
the in situ survey and image acquisition. Unfortunately, it is not easy to find high-resolution satellite
scatter plot of Satellite-Derived Bathymetry using the Stumpf algorithm and the real points dataset of
images with good overcast weather and sea conditions and this was closer in time to our
the water depths. The plot shows a point dispersion higher in the surf zone and growing with the sea
hydrographic and UAV survey period. This fact can represent a serious impediment, especially when
depth. In the deeper part of the profile, a poor correlation may be explained by the inaccuracy of the
methodology because of the lower electromagnetic radiation efficiency; the dispersive data pattern in
the nearshore area were caused by morphological variation due to the gap of time between the in situ
survey and image acquisition. Unfortunately, it is not easy to find high-resolution satellite images with
good overcast weather and sea conditions and this was closer in time to our hydrographic and UAV
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897 11 of 20
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20
it is necessary to carry out investigations relating to a specific period, as in the case of much
it is necessary to carry out investigations relating to a specific period, as in the case of much
monitoring.
survey period. This fact can represent a serious impediment, especially when it is necessary to carry
monitoring.
out investigations relating to a specific period, as in the case of much monitoring.

Figure 9. SDB with Stumpf’s model and real bathymetry plot.

Figure 9. SDB with Stumpf’s model and real bathymetry plot.
Figure 9.
Satellite-Derived Bathymetry (SDB) fit the sea bottom between the surf zone and a c.a. −7 m
Satellite-Derived Bathymetry (SDB) fit thethe
seaseabottom between the surfthe zone c.a. −7
and a and m depth
depthSatellite-Derived
better, while inBathymetry
the offshore (SDB)
andfitnearshore bottom
area itbetween surf the
underestimated zone a c.a. −7 m
real bathymetry.
better, while in the
depth better, while offshore and nearshore
in the offshore area it underestimated the real bathymetry. Overestimation
Overestimation was noticed between aand nearshore
−7 and area itat underestimated
−9 m depth, approximately the thedepth
real of
bathymetry.
closure of
was noticed between
Overestimation was a −7 andbetween
noticed −9 m depth,
a −7 at approximately
and −9 m depth, atthe depth of closure
approximately the of sediment
depth of (DOC)
closure of
sediment (DOC) in this area.
in this area.
sediment (DOC) in this area.
Figure 10 illustrates a scatter plot with UAV-Derived Bathymetry (UDB) and a real in-situ
Figure
Figure 10
10 illustrates
illustrates aa scatter
scatter plot
plot with
with UAV-Derived Bathymetry (UDB) and aa real in-situ
acoustic survey. The correlation is higher thanUAV-Derived
in the previous Bathymetry
plot, with (UDB)
a lowerand point real in-situ
dispersion.
acoustic
acoustic survey.
survey. The
The correlation
correlation is
is higher
higher than
than in
in the
the previous
previous plot,
plot, with
with aa lower
lower point
point dispersion.
dispersion.
The higher coefficient of determination is an indicator of the better goodness of fit for the
The
The higher
highercoefficient of determination
coefficient of determination is an indicator of the better goodness of fit for theofobservations.
observations. This indicates a higher degreeisofan indicator
confidence inof
thethe
UDB better goodness
results than SDB. fit for the
This indicates a higher degree of confidence in the UDB results than
observations. This indicates a higher degree of confidence in the UDB results than SDB.SDB.

Figure 10. UDB

Figure 10. UDB with
with Stumpf’s model and
Stumpf’s model and real
real bathymetry
bathymetry plot.
plot.
Figure 10. UDB with Stumpf’s model and real bathymetry plot.
Remote
RemoteSens. 2020,12,
Sens.2020, 12,3897
x FOR PEER REVIEW 12
12of
of20
20

In very shallow and deep waters, the method underestimated the real bottom topography, as
In very shallow and deep waters, the method underestimated the real bottom topography, as
explained at the beginning of the Results paragraph. On the contrary, it is possible to notice a little
explained at the beginning of the Results paragraph. On the contrary, it is possible to notice a little
overestimation in the central part of the profile, increasing down to a 10 m depth.
overestimation in the central part of the profile, increasing down to a 10 m depth.
The results of the comparative analysis between the in situ survey and satellite (SAT) or UAV-
The results of the comparative analysis between the in situ survey and satellite (SAT) or
Derived bathymetries produced with the Stumpf method are presented in Figure 11 for a beach
UAV-Derived bathymetries produced with the Stumpf method are presented in Figure 11 for a
profile located in the center of the study area (Figure 8a). A higher deviation of SDB than UDB from
beach profile located in the center of the study area (Figure 8a). A higher deviation of SDB than UDB
the real bottom is generally visible along with all the profiles. Both deviations also increase with the
from the real bottom is generally visible along with all the profiles. Both deviations also increase with
depth of the bottom.
the depth of the bottom.

Figure 11. SDB and UDB (Stumpf’s model) compared to a real surveyed profile, perpendicular to the
Figure 11. SDB and UDB (Stumpf’s model) compared to a real surveyed profile, perpendicular to the
shoreline and located in the center of the study area.
shoreline and located in the center of the study area.
Verification of the results was also conducted by considering the complete real bathymetric survey
Verification of the results was also conducted by considering the complete real bathymetric
measurement dataset (28,000 points) and comparing it with satellite and UDB values (m).
survey measurement dataset (28,000 points) and comparing it with satellite and UDB values (m).
The mean absolute deviation (MAD) was calculated to furnish the statistical dispersion or
The mean absolute deviation (MAD) was calculated to furnish the statistical dispersion or
variability of the UAV bathymetry deviation from the surveyed data.
variability of the UAV bathymetry deviation from the surveyed data.
When analyzing the statistics of measured and estimated values, it must be considered that
When analyzing the statistics of measured and estimated values, it must be considered that
traditional echosounder bathymetric surveys are also affected by errors that can be evaluated in
traditional echosounder bathymetric surveys are also affected by errors that can be evaluated in +/−10
+/−10 cm [72]. The satellite and UAV images, using Stumpf’s algorithm, were also processed with
cm [72]. The satellite and UAV images, using Stumpf’s algorithm, were also processed with optimal
optimal band ratio analysis (OBRA) methods. Our results show the best satellite and UAV band
band ratio analysis (OBRA) methods. Our results show the best satellite and UAV band combination
combination in the test area and conditions of blue (440–510 nm)/green (520–590 nm), with the best
in the test area and conditions of blue (440–510 nm)/green (520–590 nm), with the best MAD of 0.21
MAD of 0.21 cm for UDB down to a 5 m depth and 0.29 m using coastal-blue/green bands. Worse results
cm for UDB down to a 5 m depth and 0.29 m using coastal-blue/green bands. Worse results were
were obtained using the UDB yellow/green and green/red ratios, with values of 0.31 and 0.35 cm,
obtained using the UDB yellow/green and green/red ratios, with values of 0.31 and 0.35 cm,
respectively. On the contrary, SDB exhibited higher results with real values. MAD results for different
respectively. On the contrary, SDB exhibited higher results with real values. MAD results for different
methodologies and band combinations at different depth ranges are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
methodologies and band combinations at different depth ranges are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1. The mean absolute deviation (MAD) (m) of different depth ranges and band combinations for
Tablewith
UDB 1. The mean model.
Stumpf’s absolute deviation (MAD) (m) of different depth ranges and band combinations
for UDB with Stumpf’s model.
Depth Cost. Blue, Green Blue, Green
Depth Cost. Blue, Green Blue, Green
0–5 0.29 0.21
0–5
0–11
0.29
0.6
0.21
0.47
0–11 0.6 0.47
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897 13 of 20
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 20

Table 2. MAD
Table 2. MAD (m)
(m) of
of different
differentdepth
depthranges
rangesand
andband
bandcombinations
combinationsfor
forSDB
SDBwith
withStumpf’s
Stumpf’smodel.
model.

Depth
Depth Cost.Blue,
Cost. Blue,Green
Green Blue, Green
Blue, Green
0–5
0–5 0.49
0.49 0.43
0.43
0–11
0–11 0.71
0.71 0.59
0.59

Dataprocessing
Data processingwas was
alsoalso carried
carried outverify
out to to verify the minimum
the minimum numbernumber of calibration
of calibration points
points required
required
to obtain the to obtain the most
most accurate accurate
estimated estimated Our
bathymetry. bathymetry.
research andOurverification
research and verification
indicate indicate
that, down to a
5that, downthe
m depth, to difference
a 5 m depth, the difference
in terms in terms
of the accuracy of the
is less thanaccuracy
1% of theisdepth
less than
using1%50,of200,
theordepth using
500 points.
50, did
We 200,notornotice
500 points. We did not
any appreciable noticeinany
variation appreciable
computing variation
differences in computing
in elevation maps when differences
changing in
elevation
the number maps when changing
of calibration points.the number of calibration points.
In a second phase, UAV-derived
In a second phase, UAV-derived bathymetry bathymetryusing using thethe Lyzenga
Lyzenga algorithm
algorithm waswas tested.
tested. Moreover,
Moreover,
in this case, an assessment of the accuracy was conducted by comparing
in this case, an assessment of the accuracy was conducted by comparing the UDB data, generated the UDB data, generated by by
this model,
this model,with withthethereal
real bathymetry
bathymetry (full
(full dataset)
dataset) acquired
acquired by traditional
by the the traditional bathymetric
bathymetric survey survey
with
with echosounders. The results were also compared to
echosounders. The results were also compared to SDB using the Stumpf model. SDB using the Stumpf model.
Both methods
Both methods show show increasing
increasing point
point dispersion
dispersion with withthe thedepth
depthand andininthe
thesurf
surfzone
zoneatataround
arounda
a4 4mmdepth.
depth.The Thelatter cancan
latter be be
explained
explained by by
thethe
factfact
thatthat
thethebathymetric
bathymetric survey waswas
survey performed
performed a fewa
days after the UAV flight and the bars were in very dynamic area with
few days after the UAV flight and the bars were in very dynamic area with calm seas. The increase calm seas. The increase in
dispersion
in dispersion after thethe
after depth of closure
depth of the
of closure sediments,
of the sediments, withwith
a value of around
a value −9 m−9
of around form this
forarea,
this must
area,
be attributed to the decreasing of the accuracy with the depth of
must be attributed to the decreasing of the accuracy with the depth of this methodology. this methodology.
In the
In the UDB
UDB (Lyzenga
(Lyzenga model)
model) vs. vs. surveyed
surveyed bathymetry
bathymetry graph graph (Figure
(Figure 12),
12), it
it is
is shown
shown thatthat the
the
spread of
spread of the
the data
data is is lower
lower than
than for
for the
the UDB
UDB(Stumpf
(Stumpfmodel)model)method
methodand andthe
thecorrelation
correlationisishigher;
higher;a
coefficient of determination of 0.996 indicates a better fitting of the data by the
a coefficient of determination of 0.996 indicates a better fitting of the data by the regression equation. regression equation.
Furthermore,in
Furthermore, inthis
thiscase,
case,underestimation
underestimationisismore moreevident
evidentininshallow
shallowand anddeep
deepwater,
water, whereas,
whereas, from
from a
5a to
5 to
1010mm depth,
depth, overestimation
overestimation occurs.
occurs.

Figure 12. UDB with Lyzenga model and real bathymetry plot.
Figure 12. UDB with Lyzenga model and real bathymetry plot.
Figure 13 illustrates the comparison of real bathymetry and estimated values using Stumpf and
Figure 13 illustrates the comparison of real bathymetry and estimated values using Stumpf and
Lyzenga algorithms for the same profile as in Figure 8. A larger deviation from measured data is
Lyzenga algorithms for the same profile as in Figure 8. A larger deviation from measured data is
evident, especially for deeper points.
evident, especially for deeper points.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 20
RemoteSens.
Remote Sens.2020,
2020,12,
12,3897
x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of
14 of20
20

Figure 13.
Figure 13. UDB with Lyzenga
Lyzenga and
and Stumpf
Stumpf models
models and
and aa real
real surveyed
surveyed profile
profile located
located in
in the
the center
center of
of
Figure 13. UDB with Lyzenga and Stumpf models and a real surveyed profile located in the center of
the study
the study area
areaand
andperpendicular
perpendicularto
tothe
theshoreline,
shoreline,as
asin
inFigure
Figure4.4.
the study area and perpendicular to the shoreline, as in Figure 4.
Figure
Figure14a
14apresents
presentsa amapmapof of
thethe
study area,
study representing
area, the change
representing in altitude
the change between
in altitude the DEM
between the
of Figure
the of
seathe 14a
bottom,presents
obtained a map of
with the the study
surveyed area, representing
bathymetry, the
and theand
SDBchange
using in altitude between the
DEM sea bottom, obtained with the surveyed bathymetry, the SDBStumpf’s model.model.
using Stumpf’s In the
DEM
same of the sea bottom, obtained with the surveyed bathymetry, and the SDB using Stumpf’s model.
In theway,
sameFigure 14b shows
way, Figure a map awith
14b shows mapUDBwithand
UDB Lyzenga’s model.model.
and Lyzenga’s It is graphically evident
It is graphically that,
evident
Inthe
in themap
sameonway,
the Figure
right 14b
(b), theshows a mapwith
differences withthe
UDBrealand
sea Lyzenga’s
bottom model. It are
topography is graphically
smaller andevident
of the
that, in the map on the right (b), the differences with the real sea bottom topography are smaller and
that,
order in the map on the right (b), the differences with the real sea bottom topography are smaller and
of theof a few
order ofdecimeters, especially
a few decimeters, in shallow
especially waters.waters.
in shallow The plots
Theshow
plotsthe
showdifference (derived
the difference minus
(derived
of the order
survey) of a few
between decimeters,
the two estimates.especially in shallow waters. The plots show the difference (derived
minus survey) between the two estimates.
minus survey) between the two estimates.

Figure 14. Differences

Figure 14. Differences in
in elevation
elevation maps
maps using
using satellite-Stumpf- (a) and
satellite-Stumpf- (a) and UAV-Lyzenga-derived
UAV-Lyzenga-derived (b)
(b)
Figure 14. Differences
bathymetries and real in elevation
survey in the maps area.
study using satellite-Stumpf- (a) and UAV-Lyzenga-derived (b)
bathymetries and real survey in the study area.
bathymetries and real survey in the study area.
Verification
Verification ofof the
the UAV-derived
UAV-derived bathymetry
bathymetry results
results was
was also
also conducted
conducted by
by considering
considering the
the
Verification
complete in situ of
surveythe UAV-derived
dataset and bathymetry
comparing it withresults was
Lyzenga-UDB also conducted
values (m). by
The considering
final MAD the
results
complete in situ survey dataset and comparing it with Lyzenga-UDB values (m). The final MAD
complete
of differentindepth
situ survey
ranges dataset and comparing it with Lyzenga-UDB values (m). The final MAD
results of different depthare shown
ranges arein Table in
shown 3. Table 3.
results of different
To assess depth ranges
the accuracy and theare shown of
precision in the
Table
UDB 3. measurement systems, the Root Mean Squared
Error (RMSE) was also calculated for both the Lyzenga and Stumpf method (Table 4).
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897 15 of 20

Table 3. MAD (m) of different depth ranges for UDB with Lyzenga and Stumpf models.

Depth Lyzenga Stumpf

0–5 0.19 0.21
0–11 0.41 0.47

Table 4. The Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) (m) of different depth ranges for UDB with Lyzenga
and Stumpf models.

Depth Lyzenga Stumpf

0–5 0.24 0.37
0–11 0.89 1.06

4. Discussion
In this study, Stumpf and Lyzenga models have been applied to derive the bathymetry using an
UAV equipped with a multispectral camera. In general, both models produced encouraging results.
Stumpf processing is simpler compared to Lyzenga processing, which requires multiple regression
methods, but delivers slightly rough results.
The preliminary results show that the use of a professional multispectral sensor, mounted on a
UAV platform, permits a higher degree of accuracy and efficiency to be achieved in the bathymetric
survey, not only compared to satellite-derived bathymetry, but also to the global literature research and
methods based on the use of drones equipped with other different remote, active, and passive sensors.
As for providing ready-to-use data, using UAVs is an immediate method to be applied, which helps
any time such data are necessary for field activities for which the execution is required immediately
after the completion of the survey (e.g., sediment or water sampling) or in cases of urgent coastal
monitoring necessities. It must also be considered that the use of UAV can be coupled, using a
high-resolution RGB camera, with a 3D SfM survey of the emerged coastlines and can be considered
the most effective and cost-efficient technology for capturing both the land and seafloor simultaneously,
in order to provide a continuous, detailed 3D elevation model of the surveyed area. On the contrary,
UAV acquisition data are applicable to areas with kilometrical development, while the satellite images
can be used to derive the bathymetry of extended areas. Drone surveys are restricted to relatively
small areas due to the battery limitations of quadcopters and fixed wing unmanned aerial vehicles.
Similar to the SDB, this method cannot be used in the presence of increased turbidity or larger breaking
waves and calibration points are always required. The advantage is that a UAV survey can be easily
rescheduled to a day with better water conditions.
The most difficult processing and that which could be improved concerns the orthorectification of
images, given the fact that, in order to produce the final orthophoto, a bundle adjustment of the images
cannot be used due to the presence of too much water, the depth of the survey down to about −11 m
and the sandy bottom of beach. The method here proposed could be improved; however, being enough
for the purpose of this kind of application also with a 5 × 5 m cell grid DTM, flights at higher altitudes
could be performed when permitted or through special permits, in order to reduce the number of the
images and have less optical distortion. Moreover, the buoys, or alternative targets equipped with
GPS, could also be used to directly perform the single image orthorectification, using their position as
control points, but they should be moved following the drone track.

5. Conclusions
Principally, this paper has successfully illuminated the level of quality that the UAV-derived
bathymetry (UDB) technology can offer to the hydrographic surveying industry and demonstrated
that this methodology can be used to extract bathymetric data in small areas with better accuracy
than that of established by satellite-derived bathymetry (SDB) methods. The first objective of this
research was to explore the potential of UDB using Stumpf and Lyzenga models, which are two of
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897 16 of 20

the most common and cited algorithms in the scientific literature and have previously been applied
for satellite multispectral image processing. The models used by Stumpf and Lyzenga may prove
worthy of adoption for the regular monitoring of sensitive coastal areas, as their algorithms yielded
accurate results in the study area when estimating the depth of shallow waters and homogeneous
seabed. The results show how Lyzenga’s accuracy seems to be slightly higher than that of Stumpf’s
model in our research conditions.
UDB results are more accurate than those of satellite-derived bathymetry because of the higher
image details. The use of satellite imaging for sea bottom monitoring is in fact prone to shortcomings
in terms of data acquisition in the presence of overcast weather and/or adverse sea conditions. On the
other hand, UDB does not require any atmospheric correction procedure, and in small to medium
size areas, it allows an easier and cheaper acquisition of images for coastal monitoring. Our results
also confirm the literature results in terms of satellite-derived bathymetry’s accuracy. Due to the
length of time that elapses between the collection of satellite images and the ground truth bathymetric
survey, not only are the surveys conducted a significant time apart, but probabilistically, the beach
and nearshore are likely to be in two different states, given the seasonality in wave climate. For this
reason, it is difficult to draw a comparison and conclusion on the accuracy of the methods based on
these two datasets.
Finally, UDB provides a detection accuracy of about 20 cm (down to a 5 m depth) and allows
the dry beach topography to be connected to the MbEs survey at a depth (0–2 m) inaccessible or too
time-consuming for a hydrographic survey with this kind of echosounder equipment.
In this condition, UAV technology can also be used as an alternative to MbEs surveys, where the
centimetric precision is not required. It is really important to think about the objectives that need to be
reached using remote sensing and fully explore alternatives in terms of costs and effectiveness, and we
must remember that some objectives will not be achievable using these technologies.
In the face of its many upsides, the use of UAV as a tool for shallow water bathymetry requires
further testing, which will lead to a better understanding of the limits and potential of this method and
therefore to the design of a reliable standardized data acquisition process. It will be necessary to test,
where possible, flights at higher altitudes to optimize the image orthorectification and coastal sites
with different characteristics, in order to analyze the confidence intervals for the coefficient of variation
as a function of the water turbidity and surface condition and the seabed’s nature or morphology.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.R.; methodology, L.R., I.M., and F.P.; writing—original draft
preparation, L.R., I.M., and F.P.; writing—review and editing, L.R., I.M., and F.P. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Neeman, N.; Servis, J.A.; Naro-Maciel, E. Conservation Issues: Oceanic Ecosystems. In Reference Module in
Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015.
2. Bush, D.M.; Pilkey, O.H.; Neal, W.J. Human impact on coastal topography. Encycl. Ocean Sci. 2001, 1,
480–489.
3. Labuz, T.A. Environmental Impacts—Coastal Erosion and Coastline Changes. In Second Assessment of Climate
Change for the Baltic Sea Basin; The BACC II Author Team, Ed.; Regional Climate Studies; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2015.
4. Dronkers, J. Dynamics of Coastal Systems; Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering; World Scientific Publishing
Ltd.: Singapore; Hackensack, NJ, USA, 2005.
5. Neumann, B.; Vafeidis, A.T.; Zimmermann, J.; Nicholls, R.J. Future Coastal Population Growth and Exposure
to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding—A Global Assessment. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0118571. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897 17 of 20

6. Gilbert, J.; Vellinga, P. Coastal Zone Management in Climate Change: The IPCC Response Strategies. 2005,
pp. 133–159. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_III_full_report.
pdf (accessed on 25 November 2020).
7. Day, J. The need and practice of monitoring, evaluating and adapting marine planning and management.
Mar. Policy 2008, 32, 823–831. [CrossRef]
8. Douvere, F.; Ehler, C.N. The importance of monitoring and evaluation in adaptive maritime spatial planning.
J. Coast. Conserv. 2010, 15, 305–311. [CrossRef]
9. Bio, A.; Bastos, L.; Granja, H.; Pinho, J.L.S.; Goncalves, J.A.; Henriques, R.; Madeira, S.; Magalhàes, A.;
Rodrigues, D. Methods for coastal monitoring and erosion risk assessment: Two Portuguese case studies.
J. Integr. Coast. Zone Manag. 2015, 15, 47–63. [CrossRef]
10. Mentaschi, L.; Vousdoukas, M.I.; Pekel, J.-F.; Voukouvalas, E.; Feyen, L. Global long-term observations of
coastal erosion and accretion. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 12876. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Prasetya, G. Protection from Coastal Erosion; Food and Agriculture Organisation: Rome, Italy, 2007.
12. Klemas, V.V. Coastal and Environmental Remote Sensing from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: An Overview.
J. Coast. Res. 2015, 315, 1260–1267. [CrossRef]
13. Pe’eri, S.; Long, B. LIDAR Technology Applied in Coastal Studies and Management. J. Coast. Res. 2011, 62,
1–5. [CrossRef]
14. Westoby, M.J.; Brasington, J.; Glasser, N.F.; Hambrey, M.J.; Reynolds, J.M. “Structure-from-Motion”
photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology 2012, 179, 300–314.
[CrossRef]
15. Papakonstantinou, A.; Topouzelis, K.; Pavlogeorgatos, G. Coastline Zones Identification and 3D Coastal
Mapping Using UAV Spatial Data. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2016, 5, 75. [CrossRef]
16. Casella, E.; Drechsel, J.; Winter, C.; Benninghoff, M.; Rovere, A. Accuracy of sand beach topography surveying
by drones and photogrammetry. Geo-Mar. Lett. 2020, 40, 255–268. [CrossRef]
17. Laporte-Fauret, Q.; Marieu, V.; Castelle, B.; Michalet, R.; Bujan, S.; Rosebery, D. Low-Cost UAV for
High-Resolution and Large-Scale Coastal Dune Change Monitoring Using Photogrammetry. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
2019, 7, 63. [CrossRef]
18. Zhou, G.; Ming, X. Coastal 3-D Morphological Change Analysis Using LiDAR Series Data: A Case Study of
Assateague Island National Seashore. J. Coast. Res. 2009, 252, 435–447. [CrossRef]
19. Nasu, N.; Honjo, S. New Directions of Oceanographic Research and Development; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 1993.
20. Fumagalli, E.; Bibuli, M.; Caccia, M.; Zereik, E.; Fabrizio Del, B.; Gasperini, L.; Giuseppe, S.; Bruzzone, G.
Combined Acoustic and Video Characterization of Coastal Environment by means of Unmanned Surface
Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 19th World Congress, The International Federation of Automatic Control,
Cape Town, South Africa, 24–29 August 2014; pp. 24–29.
21. Muzirafuti, A.; Barreca, G.; Crupi, A.; Faina, G.; Paltrinieri, D.; Lanza, S.; Randazzo, G. The Contribution of
Multispectral Satellite Image to Shallow Water Bathymetry Mapping on the Coast of Misano Adriatico, Italy.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 126. [CrossRef]
22. Federation Iinternationale des Geometres FIG. Guidelines for the Planning, Execution and Management of
Hydrographic Surveys in Ports and Harbours. Int. Fed. Surv. FIG Comm. 2010, 4, 56.
23. International Hydrographic Organization (IHO). IHO Standards for Hydrographic Surveys, 5th ed.; International
Hydrographic Bureau: Monte Carlo, Monaco, 2018.
24. Pranzini, E.; Rossi, L. The role of coastal erosion monitoring. In Coastal Erosion Monitoring; Cipriani, L.E., Ed.;
Nuova Grafica Fiorentina: Firenze, Italy, 2013; pp. 11–55.
25. Gasperini, L. Extremely Shallow-water Morphobathymetric Surveys: The Valle Fattibello (Comacchio, Italy)
Test Case. Mar. Geophys. Res. 2005, 26, 97–107. [CrossRef]
26. Giordano, F.; Mattei, G.; Parente, C.; Peluso, F.; Santamaria, R. Integrating Sensors into a Marine Drone for
Bathymetric 3D Surveys in Shallow Waters. Sensors 2015, 16, 41. [CrossRef]
27. Wang, C.K.; Philpot, W.D. Using Airborne Bathymetric Lidar to Detect Bottom Type Variation in Shallow
Waters. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 106, 123–135. [CrossRef]
28. Jégat, V.; Pe’eri, S.; Freire, R.; Klemn, A.; Nyberg, J. Satellite-Derived Bathymetry: Performance and Production.
In Proceedings of the Canadian Hydrographic Conference, Halifax, NS, Canada, 16–19 May 2016.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897 18 of 20

29. Doxani, G.; Papadopoulou, M.; Lafazani, P.; Pikridas, C.; Tsakiri-Strati, M. Shallow-water bathymetry over
variable bottom types using multispectral worldview-2 image. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat.
Inf. Sci. 2012, 39, 159–164. [CrossRef]
30. Jawak, S.D.; Vadlamani, S.S.; Luis, A.J. A Synoptic Review on Deriving Bathymetry Information Using
Remote Sensing Technologies: Models, Methods and Comparisons. Adv. Remote Sens. 2015, 4, 147–162.
[CrossRef]
31. Deng, Z.; Ji, M.; Zhang, Z. Mapping bathymetry from multi-source remote sensing images: A case study in
the Beilun Estuary, Guangxi, China. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2008, 37, 1321–1326.
32. Said, M.; Mahmud, M.; Hasan, M. Satellite-derived bathymetry: Accuracy assessment on depths derivation
algorithm for shallow water area. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2017, XLII-4/W5,
159–164. [CrossRef]
33. Traganos, D.; Poursanidis, D.; Aggarwal, B.; Chrysoulakis, N.; Reinartz, P. Estimating Satellite-Derived
Bathymetry (SDB) with the Google Earth Engine and Sentinel-2. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 859. [CrossRef]
34. Caballero, I.; Stumpf, R.P. Towards Routine Mapping of Shallow Bathymetry in Environments with Variable
Turbidity: Contribution of Sentinel-2A/B Satellites Mission. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 451. [CrossRef]
35. Hamylton, S.M.; Hedley, J.D.; Beaman, R.J. Derivation of High-Resolution Bathymetry from Multispectral
Satellite Imagery: A Comparison of Empirical and Optimisation Methods through Geographical Error
Analysis. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 16257–16273. [CrossRef]
36. Philpott, W. Bathymetric mapping with passive multispectral imagery. Appl. Opt. 1989, 28, 1569–1578.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Gao, B.-C.; Montes, M.J.; Li, R.-R.; Dierssen, H.M.; Davis, C.O. An Atmospheric Correction Algorithm for
Remote Sensing of Bright Coastal Waters Using MODIS Land and Ocean Channels in the Solar Spectral
Region. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2007, 45, 1835–1843. [CrossRef]
38. Joshi, I.D.; DSa, E.J.; Osburn, C.L.; Bianchi, T.S. Turbidity in Apalachicola Bay, Florida from Landsat 5 TM
and Field Data: Seasonal Patterns and Response to Extreme Events. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 367. [CrossRef]
39. Lyzenga, D.R. Passive remote sensing techniques for mapping water depth and bottom features. Appl. Opt.
1978, 17, 379–383. [CrossRef]
40. Lyzenga, D.R. Remote sensing of bottom reflectance and water attenuation parameters in shallow water
using Aircraft and Landsat data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1981, 2, 72–82. [CrossRef]
41. Lyzenga, D.R.; Malinas, N.; Tanis, F. Multispectral bathymetry using a simple physically based algorithm.
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2006, 44, 2251–2259. [CrossRef]
42. Jupp, D.L.B. Background and extensions to depth of penetration (DOP) mapping in shallow coastal
waters. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Remote Sensing of the Coastal Zone, Gold Coast, Australia,
7–9 September 1988; Volume IV-2.
43. Stumpf, R.P.; Holderied, K.; Sinclair, M. Determination of water depth with high-resolution satellite imagery
over variable bottom types. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2003, 48, 547–556. [CrossRef]
44. Panchang, V.; Kaihatu, J.M. Advances in Coastal Hydraulics; World Scientific Publishing Ltd.: Singapore;
Hackensack, NJ, USA, 2018.
45. Flener, C.; Lotsari, E.; Alho, P.; Kayhko, J. Comparison of Empirical and Theoretical Remote Sensing Based
Bathymetry Models in River Environments. River Res. Appl. 2012, 28, 118–133. [CrossRef]
46. Toro, G.F.; Tsourdos, A. UAV or Drones for Remote Sensing Applications; MDPI: Basel, Switzerland, 2018;
Volume 2.
47. Gonçalves, J.A.; Henriques, R. UAV photogrammetry for topographic monitoring of coastal areas. ISPRS J.
Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2015, 104, 101–111. [CrossRef]
48. Long, N.; Millescamps, B.; Pouget, F.; Dumon, A.; Lachaussée, N.; Bertin, X. Accuracy assessment of coastal
topography derived from UAV images. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2016, XLI-B1,
1127–1134. [CrossRef]
49. Taddia, Y.; Russo, P.; Lovo, S.; Pellegrinelli, A. Multispectral UAV monitoring of submerged seaweed in
shallow water. Appl. Geomat. 2020, 12, 19–34. [CrossRef]
50. Remondino, F.; Barazzetti, L.; Nex, F.; Scaioni, M.; Sarazzi, D. UAV Photogrammetry for mapping and 3D
modeling–Current status and future perspectives. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote. Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2011,
XXXVIII-1/C22, 25–31. [CrossRef]
51. Jeziorska, J. UAS for Wetland Mapping and Hydrological Modeling. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1997. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897 19 of 20

52. Nex, F.; Remondino, F. UAV for 3D mapping applications: A review. Appl. Geomat. 2013, 6, 1–15. [CrossRef]
53. Turner, I.L.; Harley, M.D.; Drummond, C.D. UAVs for coastal surveying. Coast. Eng. 2016, 114, 19–24.
[CrossRef]
54. Mandlburger, G.; Pfennigbauer, M.; Wieser, M.; Riegl, U.; Pfeifer, N. Evaluation of a Novel UAV-BORNE
Topo-Bathymetric Laser Profiler. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2016, XLI-B1, 933–939.
[CrossRef]
55. Bandini, F. Hydraulics and Drones: Observations of Water Level, Bathymetry and Water Surface Velocity from
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark
(DTU): Lyngby, Denmark, 2017.
56. Jonathan, L.; Carrivick, M.; Smith, W. Fluvial and aquatic applications of Structure from Motion
photogrammetry and unmanned aerial vehicle/drone technology. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2019,
6, e1328.
57. Casella, E.; Collin, A.; Harris, D.; Ferse, S.; Bejarano, S.; Parravicini, V.; Hench, J.L.; Rovere, A. Mapping coral
reefs using consumer-grade drones and structure from motion photogrammetry techniques. Coral Reefs 2017,
36, 269–275. [CrossRef]
58. Tamminga, A.; Hugenholtz, C.; Eaton, B.; Lapointe, M. Hyperspatial Remote Sensing of Channel Reach
Morphology and Hydraulic Fish Habitat Using an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV): A first assessment in
the Context of River Research and Management. River Res. Appl. 2015, 31, 379–391. [CrossRef]
59. Fallati, L.; Saponari, L.; Savini, A.; Marchese, F.; Corselli, C.; Galli, P. Multi-Temporal UAV Data and
Object-Based Image Analysis (OBIA) for Estimation of Substrate Changes in a Post-Bleaching Scenario on a
Maldivian Reef. Remote. Sens. 2020, 12, 2093. [CrossRef]
60. Ahn, K.; Oh, C.Y.; Park, Y.S.; Park, S.W. Passive Remote Sensing Using Drone and HD Camera for Mapping
Surf Zone Bathymetry. In International Conference on Asian and Pacific Coasts, Proceedings of the APAC
2019, Hanoi, Vietnam, 25–28 September 2019; Trung Viet, N., Xiping, D., Thanh Tung, T., Eds.; Springer:
Singapore, 2019.
61. Agrafiotis, P.; Skarlatos, D.; Georgopoulos, A.; Karantzalos, K. Shallow Water Bathymetry Mapping from
Uav Imagery Based on Machine Learning. ISPRS Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci 2019,
XLII-2/W10, 9–16. [CrossRef]
62. Plant, N.; Holman, R.; Holland, K.T. cBathy: A robust algorithm for estimating nearshore bathymetry.
J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 2013, 118, 2595–2609.
63. Matsuba, Y.; Sato, S. Nearshore bathymetry estimation using UAV. Coast. Eng. J. 2018, 60, 51–59. [CrossRef]
64. Chirayath, V.; Earle, S.A. Drones that see through waves—Preliminary results from airborne fluid lensing for
centimetre-scale aquatic conservation. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2013, 26 (Suppl. S2), 237–250.
[CrossRef]
65. Flener, C.; Vaaja, M.; Jaakkola, A.; Krooks, A.; Kaartinen, H.; Kukko, A.; Kasvi, E.; Hyyppä, H.; Hyyppä, J.;
Alho, P. Seamless mapping of river channels at high resolution using mobile liDAR and UAV-photography.
Remote Sens. 2013, 5, 6382–6407. [CrossRef]
66. Zinke, P.; Flener, C. Experiences from the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) for River Bathymetry
Modelling in Norway. Vann 2013, 48, 351–360.
67. Gentile, V.; Mróz, M.; Spitoni, M.; Lejot, J.; Piégay, H.; Demarchi, L. Bathymetric Mapping of Shallow Rivers
with UAV Hyperspectral Data. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Telecommunications
and Remote Sensing, Milan, Italy, 10–11 October 2016; pp. 43–49.
68. Nebiker, S.; Lack, N.; Abächerli, M.; Läderach, S. Light-Weight multispectral UAV sensors and their
capabilities for predicting grain yield and detecting plant diseases. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat.
Inf. Sci. 2016, XLI-B1, 12–19. [CrossRef]
69. Rossi, L.; Mammì, I.; Pranzini, E. A comparison between UAV and high-resolution multispectral satellite
images for bathymetry estimation. In Proceedings of the IX Conference of the Italian Society of Remote
Sensing. Trends in Earth Observation: Earth Observation Advancements in a Changing World, Firenze, Italy,
30 November–1 December 2018; Volume 1, pp. 143–146.
70. Pushparaj, J.; Hegde, A.V. Estimation of bathymetry along the coast of Mangaluru using Landsat-8 imagery.
J. Ocean Clim. Sci. Technol. Impacts 2018, 8, 71–83. [CrossRef]
71. Hedley, J.D.; Harborne, A.R.; Mumby, P.J. Simple and robust removal of sun glint for mapping shallow-water
benthos. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2005, 26, 2107–2112. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3897 20 of 20

72. Gibeaut, J.C.; Gutierrez, R.; Kyser, J.A. Increasing the Accuracy and Resolution of Coastal Bathymetric
Surveys. J. Coast. Res. 1998, 14, 1082–1098.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).