Abstract

This study aims to evaluate three classes of methods to discriminate between 13 peatland vegetation types using reflectance data. These vegetation types were empirically defined according to their composition, strata and biodiversity richness. On one hand, it is assumed that the same vegetation type spectral signatures have similarities. Consequently, they can be compared to a reference spectral database. To catch those similarities, several similarities criteria (related to distances (Euclidean distance, Manhattan distance, Canberra distance) or spectral shapes (Spectral Angle Mapper) or probabilistic behaviour (Spectral Information Divergence)) and several mathematical transformations of spectral signatures enhancing absorption features (such as the first derivative or the second derivative, the normalized spectral signature, the continuum removal, the continuum removal derivative reflectance, the log transformation) were investigated. Furthermore, those similarity measures were applied on spectral ranges which characterize specific biophysical properties. On the other hand, we suppose that specific biophysical properties/components may help to discriminate between vegetation types applying supervised classification such as Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machines (SVM), Regularized Logistic Regression (RLR), Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA). Biophysical components can be used in a local way considering vegetation spectral indices or in a global way considering spectral ranges and transformed spectral signatures, as explained above. RLR classifier applied on spectral vegetation indices (training size = 25%) was able to achieve 77.21% overall accuracy in discriminating peatland vegetation types. It was also able to discriminate between 83.95% vegetation types considering specific spectral range [[range-phrase = –]3501350 n m ], first derivative of spectral signatures and training size = 25%. Conversely, similarity criterion was able to achieve 81.70% overall accuracy using the Canberra distance computed on the full spectral range [[range-phrase = –]3502500 n m ]. The results of this study suggest that RLR classifier and similarity criteria are promising to map the different vegetation types with high ecological values despite vegetation heterogeneity and mixture.

Highlights

  • Peatlands represent a diverse array of wetlands that accumulate partially decomposed organic material

  • Because of the high variability of some vegetation types (Appendix B), spectral reference database built from median spectra, that are real spectra, gave worse results than spectral reference database built from median and mean spectra, that are theoretical spectra not representative of a in situ measured vegetation type (Table 7)

  • This study demonstrated that is it possible to discriminate between peatland vegetation types by using the Canberra distance on the whole spectral range [350–2500 nm]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Peatlands represent a diverse array of wetlands that accumulate partially decomposed organic material. Whilst they may only cover a small proportion (~3%) of the Earth’s land surface, these ecosystems are highly important in terms of functional and ecological values. Species discrimination for floristic mapping needs intensive field work, including taxonomical information and the visual estimation of percentage cover for each species which are costly and time-consuming and sometimes inapplicable due to their poor accessibility [4]. The main advantages that make remote sensing preferable to field-based methods in land cover classification, are that it has repeat coverage potential, allowing continuous monitoring, and its digital data can be integrated into a geographic information system (GIS) for more analysis which is less costly and less time-consuming [5,6]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.