Geology Reports⌕ Search

subject

Drones

Drones: explore 2 source-linked works published from 2025 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: usgs. Collection updated 2026-09-20. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

A methods framework for evaluating measurement consistency across spectrometers for multispectral uncrewed aerial system vegetation mapping applications

The U.S. Geological Survey collects remote sensing data to support national scientific assessments of natural resources, hazards, and landscape change. Spectrometers and spectroradiometers are essential for gathering point-based spectral measurements used in applications such as uncrewed aerial systems (UAS) multispectral image calibration, validation, and analysis. Evaluating how different instruments perform in laboratory and field environments helps determine whether they provide consistent, interoperable measurements. Such verification can expand access to spectral ground data during UAS operations by allowing scientists to use alternative instruments when budgets, logistics, or field conditions limit options. We propose and test a methodological framework for evaluating spectrometers for measurement consistency during UAS multispectral vegetation mapping applications. There are three central evaluation components to the framework: laboratory, field, and relative to UAS multispectral imagery. By evaluating the instruments in both relatively controlled and uncontrolled environments, we thoroughly examine measurement consistency and when/why measurements may differ. We opportunistically selected two instruments for a case study in a coastal marsh setting: a compact laboratory spectrometer we modified for field use and a field-ready spectroradiometer. The instruments produced consistent measurements in both environments. We found differences between the field spectra and UAS spectra that likely reflect the perspectives of ground vs. aerial data and indicate that further radiometric calibration may be needed.

Massachusetts↗

Towards mobile wind measurements using joust configured ultrasonic anemometer for applications in gas flux quantification

Small uncrewed aerial systems (sUASs) can be used to quantify emissions of greenhouse and other gases, providing flexibility in quantifying these emissions from a multitude of sources, including oil and gas infrastructure, volcano plumes, wildfire emissions, and natural sources. However, sUAS-based emission estimates are sensitive to the accuracy of wind speed and direction measurements. In this study, we examined how filtering and correcting sUAS-based wind measurements affects data accuracy by comparing data from a miniature ultrasonic anemometer mounted on a sUAS in a joust configuration to highly accurate wind data taken from a nearby eddy covariance flux tower (aka the Tower). These corrections had a small effect on wind speed error, but reduced wind direction errors from 50° to >120° to 20–30°. A concurrent experiment examining the amount of error due to the sUAS and the Tower not being co-located showed that the impact of this separation was 0.16–0.21 ms − 1 "> ms − 1 , a small influence on wind speed errors. Lower wind speed errors were correlated with lower turbulence intensity and higher relative wind speeds. There were also some loose trends in diminished wind direction errors at higher relative wind speeds. Therefore, to improve the quality of sUAS-based wind measurements, our study suggested that flight planning consider optimizing conditions that can lower turbulence intensity and maximize relative wind speeds as well as include post-flight corrections.

Alaska↗
Compare source metadata on this page

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.