the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
From point cloud to digital elevation model: Airborne topo-bathymetric LiDAR processing over the 28 km Ardèche River Gorges
Abstract. We present a comprehensive workflow for processing a large-scale airborne Topo-Bathymetric LiDAR (TBL) dataset acquired over the 28 km Ardèche River Gorges in France during October 2021. To address limited depth penetration, low signal-to-noise ratio, and complex topography, we integrate onboard discrete returns, a full-waveform (FWF) re-analysis, and an orthorectified full-waveform synthesis (OrthoFWF). Depth penetration, evaluated by D99 (99th percentile of retrieved water depth, D), increases from 2.88 m (discrete) to 3.70 m (FWF) and 4.48 m (OrthoFWF). Area coverage increases from 70.1 % to 79.5 % to 85.6 % of the submerged area with bathymetric data available, while the length-based coverage (the percentage of river length composed of reaches with ≥95 % bathymetric coverage) improves from 31.8 % to 54.7 % to 86.9 %. A new unsupervised classification method, using a kernel-density–derived intensity threshold, was applied to 1.3 million points, enhancing the separation of bed returns from noise within the OrthoFWF domain and improving depth extraction. The workflow includes internal flight-line geometric correction, precision benchmarking against France’s national LiDAR HD dataset, bathymetric classification with a random-forest classifier, and a targeted supplementary sonar survey to constrain the deepest reaches. To produce the final Digital Elevation Model from incomplete coverage, we compare three interpolation approaches and demonstrate that Poisson surface reconstruction yields the most morphologically realistic surfaces, particularly when constrained by sonar-derived depths. This integrated workflow substantially improves the accuracy and completeness of river bathymetry, supporting high-fidelity hydrodynamic modeling and advancing TBL applications in fluvial geomorphology.
- Preprint
(2524 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(275 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-724', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Apr 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-724', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Jun 2026
Summary and general comment: Airborne LiDAR Bathymetry – New Methods and Challenges
The study highlights the increasing relevance of topo-bathymetric LiDAR (TBL) for efficient bathymetric data acquisition in shallow waters, particularly in addressing challenges related to mapping of complex riverbed topography. The study presents advanced Full-Waveform (FWF) processing methods, unsupervised classification for separations of weak echoes and noise returns, and the evaluation of interpolation methods to address data gaps in riverbed measurements.
All presented methods are assessed in terms of their potential to increase the area of acquired riverbed and their applicability to large datasets (including computational feasibility).
However, the study lacks validation using independent bathymetric datasets. Since the study appears to focus on the applicability of the approaches presented, the validation is acceptable in this context; however, it should still be performed in future studies.
The contribution addresses the topic of extended FWF processing to enhance the penetration depth of laser bathymetry, enabling more efficient riverbed mapping. The topic is highly relevant, and the paper is well-structured, clearly written, and readily comprehensible.
Specific comments:
- Lack of validation
Unfortunately, the study lacks validation based on independent bathymetric datasets. The difficulties in obtaining such reference data are well known. Nevertheless, independent validation would be necessary to verify the reliability and accuracy of the methods, to properly interpret the results, and to demonstrate the potential of these approaches. The study appears to focus on presenting methods and demonstrating their feasibility for processing very large datasets. In this context, the lack of validation is acceptable, as the primary aim is to showcase the scalability and practical applicability of the approaches.
The lack of validation represents a significant gap and should be clearly addressed in the discussion section. - Unsupervised noise filtering for the deep OrthoFWF classification
This is a very interesting and exciting approach. However, I am interested in how the method handles depths at which green light attenuation in turbid or deep water causes the riverbed return amplitude to drop down to the (sensor) noise level. Since the amplitude of sensor induced noise peaks is depth-independent while the riverbed signal decreases with depth. Do you define a depth threshold beyond which riverbed peaks can no longer be reliably distinguished from noise peaks, thereby preventing noise peaks from being misclassified as riverbed returns? Additionally, in Figure 6, I seem to observe a consistent noise amplitude floor beginning at approximately 3.25 m depth — could you confirm this?
Suggestions for improvement and clarifications and technical corrections
- Sensor and Data Introduction (End of Section 2)
Consider adding details about the typical length of an FWF (Full Waveform) and whether the length or number of samples per FWF is dynamic or constant. Including a visualization of a typical raw individual FWF would also be beneficial. These aspects vary between sensors, and it would be valuable for readers to understand how this applies specifically to the Optech Titan DW. - Boresight Alignment and Lever-Arm Values (Lines 243–246)
For completeness, please include the values for boresight alignment and lever-arm, along with their respective accuracies. This would provide additional technical depth. - Numerical Representation (Line 268)
Ensure the correct formatting of numerical values and units, such as "between 0.0 m and 0.7 m," to maintain precision and consistency. - Refractive Index in Water (Line 332)
The refractive index in water (nW) significantly impacts the accuracy of bathymetric points. Could you briefly explain how this value was determined and provide a reference to a formula or guideline? Could you also clarify whether this value can be adjusted in the CloudCompare plugin (e.g., for coastal waters at 15 °C and 3.5% salinity)? - Reclassification of Bathymetric Points (Line 377)
Can you provide more details on how misclassified bathymetric points are identified? Please describe the criteria or visual patterns used for reclassification, especially if this process is based on manual filtering. - Disconnected Sentence (Line 451)
The sentence in this line seems out of place to me and doesn't have a clear connection to the preceding section. Consider rephrasing it or integrating it more effectively into the text. - Height Accuracy (Line 544)
The stated height accuracy of 63.1 cm seems relatively high. Could you elaborate on why this value is so large? Providing context or potential reasons would help clarify this for readers. - Depths in Figure 7B-C (Line 613)
The depth range of 5–8 m is mentioned, but the scale in Figure 7B-C ends at 4.5 m. Please clarify where these depths are shown or adjust the figure accordingly. - Sonar as a Supplementary Tool (Line 723)
The statement that sonar should be viewed as a supplementary tool rather than a primary data source sounds too generalized to me, even though it only applies to your dataset. While TBL is efficient in shallow waters, sonar remains the primary method for bathymetric measurements due to its ability to measure depths of up to 11,000 m with high accuracy. Even in your dataset, sonar data is necessary to correct interpolations in deeper areas. Please clarify this statement or perhaps omit this addition so that it cannot be misunderstood. - Literature references
Ensure the completeness and accuracy of the references in both the text and the bibliography. This includes verifying that all cited literature in the text is included in the bibliography and removing any references in the bibliography that are not cited in the text. Additionally, check the correct spelling and formatting of the references. The following issues have been identified so far (this list may not be complete)- Line 69: Tunnicliffe et al., 2024 is missing from the bibliography.
- Line 76: Passalacqua et al., 2014 — should this be 2015?
- Lines 109/112: Mader et al., 2023 — clarify if this should be 2023a or 2023b.
- Line 114: Stainbacher et al., 2021 — should this be Steinbacher?
- …
- Line 396: Launeau et al., 2019 is missing from the bibliography.
- …
Please check the literature references of the entire contribution.
- Intensity vs. Amplitude
Please check whether the signal strength of an FWF sample is referred to as "amplitude" or "intensity." I guess these terms are not the same. - LiDAR HD Definition
Clarify what "LiDAR HD" stands for, as this term may not be immediately clear to all readers.
(The reviewed preprint was downloaded on April 15, 2026.)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-724-RC2 - Lack of validation
Model code and software
Full waveform plugin for CloudCompare [software] D. Lague et al. https://doi.org/10.26169/fwf
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 417 | 224 | 28 | 669 | 48 | 18 | 24 |
- HTML: 417
- PDF: 224
- XML: 28
- Total: 669
- Supplement: 48
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 24
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This is a very interesting and well-presented study addressing an important challenge in topo-bathymetric LiDAR processing. The proposed workflow is comprehensive and clearly described, and the application to a large-scale (28 km) dataset is particularly valuable.
I especially appreciate the integration of full-waveform processing and the development of the OrthoFWF approach, which appears to significantly improve both depth penetration and coverage.
I have a few comments and questions:
Overall, this is a strong methodological contribution that would benefit from minor clarifications.