سابِق|تال

Mangrove species classification with UAV-based remote sensing data and XGBoost

  • role： First author第一作者
  • Affiliation：

    College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China

    MNR Key Laboratory for Geo-Environmental Monitoring of Great Bay Area & Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urban Informatics, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China

    Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente, Enschede 7514 AE, Netherlands

  • Email：y.xu-3@utwente.nl
  • Introduction：徐逸,1995年生,男,硕士研究生，研究方向为滨海湿地遥感。E-mail: y.xu-3@utwente.nl
XU Yi123,  
  • Affiliation：

    MNR Key Laboratory for Geo-Environmental Monitoring of Great Bay Area & Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urban Informatics, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China

    College of Life Sciences and Oceanography, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China

ZHEN Jianing24,  
  • Affiliation：

    MNR Key Laboratory for Geo-Environmental Monitoring of Great Bay Area & Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urban Informatics, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China

JIANG Xiapeng2,  
  • role： Corresponding author通信作者
  • Affiliation：

    MNR Key Laboratory for Geo-Environmental Monitoring of Great Bay Area & Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urban Informatics, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China

    College of Life Sciences and Oceanography, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China

  • Email：wang_2015@szu.edu.cn
  • Introduction：王俊杰,1988年生,男,助理教授，研究方向为滨海湿地遥感。E-mail: wang_2015@szu.edu.cn
WANG Junjie24*

ملخص

Mangrove forest provides huge value of ecosystem services, such as beach protection, siltation promotion, flood and wave prevention, preventing waves, and biodiversity maintenance. Species composition and diversity are key parameters for assessing the health of forest ecosystem, and the loss of species diversity often accelerates degradation of structure and function of forest ecosystem. Therefore, accurately monitoring species composition and spatio-temporal distribution of mangrove forest are helpful for timely and effective management and restoration measures, which can further retain the quality of the mangrove ecosystem and biodiversity. The traditional means of obtaining mangrove species information requires time-consuming, labor-intensive and costly field survey, however, it is difficult to further understand the continuous distribution of forest health. In contrast, remote sensing technology is more cost-effective and can achieve spatially continuous monitoring of mangrove species composition and health status. With the fast-developing fine-resolution multispectral satellites, the images are used for classifying mangrove species due to their rich spatial geometric information. However, compared to multispectral images that contain limited spectral information, hyperspectral data are more effective for tree species discrimination or classification due to hundreds or even thousands of continuous bands that can reflect vegetation functional traits (e.g. pigment content, specific leaf area and nitrogen content). Moreover, LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) point cloud can acquire details related to three-dimensional features of the vegetation structure.Traditionally, there are many data dimension reduction or feature extraction methods, such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Independent Component Analysis (ICA), Minimum Noise Fraction (MNF) and Successive Projections Algorithm (SPA). However, these methods should combine with other classifiers in classification of plant species. To improve the classification accuracy and efficiency, this paper introduces a new machine learning method with both feature selection and classification functions—eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost). The rapidly growing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and portable sensors of hyperspectral imagery and LiDAR have provided higher quality remote sensing data. UAV-based remote sensing data can derive massive features of spectra, texture and structure, therefore, how to extract dominant features is a key issue to improve the efficiency and accuracy of mangrove species classification.With UAV-based hyperspectral imagery and LiDAR point cloud of the buffer area in Shenzhen Futian Mangrove Nature Reserve, this study aims to extract eight types of dominant features suitable for mangrove species classification using “feature_importance” property of XGBoost. The dominant features include: single feature derived from UAV-based hyperspectral imagery (spectral bands, vegetation indices and texture: F1—F3) and their fused feature (F4), single feature derived from UAV-based LiDAR point cloud (height and intensity feature: F5, F6) and their fused feature (F7), and fused feature coupling hyperspectral imagery and LiDAR point cloud.Synthetically considering species classification accuracy and mapping results, the classification model based on F8 feature held the best performance (overall accuracy was 96.41%, Moran’s I was 0.5520). The classification performance based on fused feature of single data source (F4 and F7, overall accuracy was separately 96.74% and 90.64%) was superior than that of single feature (F1—F3, F5 and F6, overall accuracy was 90.31%, 92.20%, 91.96%, 87.66% and 81.99% respectively). The Moran’s I of classification maps based on fused feature (F4, F7 and F8) and texture feature (F3) were greater than that of single feature (F1, F2, F5 and F6). Moreover, mangrove species classification models based on different dominant features have their own advantages on spatial mapping. The introduction of F3 effectively solved the common salt-and-pepper effect in the mapping results based on F1 and F2; moreover, the salt-and-pepper effect in the edge of classification images (near tidal flat area) was significantly improved in the mapping results based on F5, F7 and F8.We conclude that: (1) The combination of UAV-based remote sensing data and XGBoost is feasible to pixel-oriented accurate classification of mangrove species, the fusion feature of UAV-based hyperspectral image and LiDAR point cloud has the best classification effect when comprehensively comparing classification accuracy (OA) and mapping effect (Moran’s I); (2) when fusing the different types of features derived from UAV-based hyperspectral or LiDAR data alone, the corresponding classification accuracy and mapping effect behaved better than the single feature derived from the same UAV data source; (3) XGBoost, a machine learning method with both feature selection and classification functions, has great potential in remote sensing image classification; (4) the intensity features derived from LiDAR point clouds are greatly affected by UAV flight strips, however, the height features are robust in mangrove species classification. Future research will focus on unmixing of hyperspectral data, fuzzy classification and radiation transfer models (such as PROSAIL) to improve the accuracy and interpretability of mangrove species classification. This paper demonstrated the feasibility of UAV-based remote sensing data and XGBoost in the pixel-oriented precise classification of mangrove species, which can provide scientific basis and technical support for three-dimensional monitoring of health, conservation and restoration for mangrove ecosystem.

مفهوم

remote sensing;mangrove;Tree Species Classification;UAV;hyperspectral imagery;LiDAR point cloud;XG1300st

References

  1. 1.
    Alonzo M, Bookhagen B and Roberts D A. 2014. Urban tree species mapping using hyperspectral and lidar data fusion. Remote Sensing of Environment, 148: 70-83
  2. 2.
    Bajjali W. 2017. ArcGIS for environmental and water issues. Springer.
  3. 3.
    Bullock E L, Fagherazzi S, Nardin W, Vo-Luong P, Nguyen P and Woodcock C E. 2017. Temporal patterns in species zonation in a mangrove forest in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, using a time series of Landsat imagery. Continental Shelf Research, 147: 144-154
  4. 4.
    Cai L F, Wu D S, Fang L M and Zheng X Y. 2019. Tree species identification using XGBoost based on GF-2 images. Forest Resources Management, (5): 44-51
  5. 5.
    Cao J J, Leng W C, Liu K, Liu L, He Z and Zhu Y H. 2018. Object-based mangrove species classification using unmanned aerial vehicle hyperspectral images and digital surface models. Remote Sensing, 10(1): 89
  6. 6.
    Chan J C W and Paelinckx D. 2008. Evaluation of Random Forest and Adaboost tree-based ensemble classification and spectral band selection for ecotope mapping using airborne hyperspectral imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112(6): 2999-3011
  7. 7.
    Chen T Q and Guestrin C. 2016. XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system//Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. San Francisco: Association for Computing Machinery: 785-794
  8. 8.
    Clark M L, Clark D B and Roberts D A. 2004. Small-footprint lidar estimation of sub-canopy elevation and tree height in a tropical rain forest landscape. Remote Sensing of Environment, 91(1): 68-89
  9. 9.
    Clark M L, Roberts D A and Clark D B. 2005. Hyperspectral discrimination of tropical rain forest tree species at leaf to crown scales. Remote Sensing of Environment, 96(3/4): 375-398
  10. 10.
    Dalponte M, Ørka H O, Ene L T, Gobakken T and Næsset E. 2014. Tree crown delineation and tree species classification in boreal forests using hyperspectral and ALS data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 140: 306-317
  11. 11.
    Ferreira M P, Wagner F H, Aragão L E O C, Shimabukuro Y E and de Souza Filho C R. 2019. Tree species classification in tropical forests using visible to shortwave infrared WorldView-3 images and texture analysis. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 149: 119-131
  12. 12.
    Franklin S E, Hall R J, Moskal L M, Maudie A J and Lavigne M B. 2000. Incorporating texture into classification of forest species composition from airborne multispectral images. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 21(1): 61-79
  13. 13.
    Freeman E A, Moisen G G, Coulston J W and Wilson B T. 2015. Random forests and stochastic gradient boosting for predicting tree canopy cover: comparing tuning processes and model performance. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 46(3): 323-339
  14. 14.
    García M, Riaño D, Chuvieco E and Danson F M. 2010. Estimating biomass carbon stocks for a Mediterranean forest in central Spain using LiDAR height and intensity data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 114(4): 816-830
  15. 15.
    Govender M, Chetty K, Naiken V and Bulcock H. 2008. A comparison of satellite hyperspectral and multispectral remote sensing imagery for improved classification and mapping of vegetation. Water SA, 34(2): 147-154
  16. 16.
    Guo Q H, Su Y J, Hu T Y, Zhao X Q, Wu F F, Li Y M, Liu J, Chen L H, Xu G C, Lin G H, Zheng Y, Lin Y Q, Mi X C, Fei L and Wang X G. 2017. An integrated UAV-borne lidar system for 3D habitat mapping in three forest ecosystems across China. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 38(8/10): 2954-2972
  17. 17.
    Haralick R. M., Shanmugam K., & Dinstein I. H. 1973. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, (6), 610-621.
  18. 18.
    Hauser L T, Nguyen Vu G, Nguyen B A, Dade E, Nguyen H M, Nguyen T T Q, Le T Q, Vu L H, Tong A T H and Pham H V. 2017. Uncovering the spatio-temporal dynamics of land cover change and fragmentation of mangroves in the Ca Mau peninsula, Vietnam using multi-temporal SPOT satellite imagery (2004-2013). Applied Geography, 86: 197-207
  19. 19.
    Heumann B W. 2011. Satellite remote sensing of mangrove forests: recent advances and future opportunities. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 35(1): 87-108
  20. 20.
    Hirano A, Madden M and Welch R. 2003. Hyperspectral image data for mapping wetland vegetation. Wetlands, 23(2): 436-448
  21. 21.
    Hovi A, Korhonen L, Vauhkonen J and Korpela I. 2016. LiDAR waveform features for tree species classification and their sensitivity to tree- and acquisition related parameters. Remote Sensing of Environment, 173: 224-237
  22. 22.
    Huang X. 2013. Multiscale Texture and Shape Feature Extraction and Object-Oriented Classification for Very High Resolution Remotely Sensed Imagery. Wuhan: Wuhan University
  23. 23.
    Huang X, Zhang L P and Wang L. 2009. Evaluation of morphological texture features for mangrove forest mapping and species discrimination using multispectral IKONOS imagery. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 6(3): 393-397
  24. 24.
    Jensen R R, Hardin P J and Hardin A J. 2012. Classification of urban tree species using hyperspectral imagery. Geocarto International, 27(5): 443-458
  25. 25.
    Jia M M, Zhang Y Z, Wang Z M, Song K S and Ren C Y. 2014. Mapping the distribution of mangrove species in the Core Zone of Mai Po Marshes Nature Reserve, Hong Kong, using hyperspectral data and high-resolution data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 33: 226-231
  26. 26.
    Johansen K and Phinn S. 2006. Mapping structural parameters and species composition of riparian vegetation using IKONOS and Landsat ETM+ data in Australian tropical savannahs. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 72(1): 71-80
  27. 27.
    Kamal M and Phinn S. 2011. Hyperspectral data for mangrove species mapping: a comparison of pixel-based and object-based approach. Remote Sensing, 3(10): 2222-2242
  28. 28.
    Latifi H, Fassnacht F and Koch B. 2012. Forest structure modeling with combined airborne hyperspectral and LiDAR data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 121: 10-25
  29. 29.
    Li Q S, Wong F K K and Fung T. 2019a. Classification of mangrove species using combined wordview-3 and LiDAR data in Mai Po nature reserve, Hong Kong. Remote Sensing, 11(18): 2114
  30. 30.
    Li Y C, Li C, Li M Y and Liu Z Z. 2019b. Influence of variable selection and forest type on forest aboveground biomass estimation using machine learning algorithms. Forests, 10(12): 1073
  31. 31.
    Li Z, Zan Q J, Yang Q, Zhu D H, Chen Y J and Yu S X. 2019c. Remote estimation of mangrove aboveground carbon stock at the species level using a low-cost unmanned aerial vehicle system. Remote Sensing, 11(9): 1018
  32. 32.
    Liu L X, Coops N C, Aven N W and Pang Y. 2017. Mapping urban tree species using integrated airborne hyperspectral and LiDAR remote sensing data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 200: 170-182
  33. 33.
    Lyons M B, Keith D A, Phinn S R, Mason T J and Elith J. 2018. A comparison of resampling methods for remote sensing classification and accuracy assessment. Remote Sensing of Environment, 208: 145-153
  34. 34.
    Mallinis G, Koutsias N, Tsakiri-Strati M and Karteris M. 2008. Object-based classification using Quickbird imagery for delineating forest vegetation polygons in a Mediterranean test site. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 63(2): 237-250
  35. 35.
    Maltamo M, Eerikäinen K, Pitkänen J, Hyyppä J and Vehmas M. 2004. Estimation of timber volume and stem density based on scanning laser altimetry and expected tree size distribution functions. Remote Sensing of Environment, 90(3): 319-330
  36. 36.
    Maltamo M, Peuhkurinen J, Malinen J, Vauhkonen J, Packalén P and Tokola T. 2009. Predicting tree attributes and quality characteristics of Scots pine using airborne laser scanning data. Silva Fennica, 43(3): 203
  37. 37.
    Manjunath K R, Kumar T, Kundu N and Panigrahy S. 2013. Discrimination of mangrove species and mudflat classes using in situ hyperspectral data: a case study of Indian Sundarbans. GIScience and Remote Sensing, 50(4): 400-417
  38. 38.
    Mather P M and Koch M. 2011. Computer processing of remotely-sensed images: an introduction. 4th ed. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons
  39. 39.
    Maxwell A E, Warner T A and Fang F. 2018. Implementation of machine-learning classification in remote sensing: an applied review. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 39(9): 2784-2817
  40. 40.
    Means J E, Acker S A, Fitt B J, Renslow M, Emerson L and Hendrix C J. 2000. Predicting forest stand characteristics with airborne scanning LIDAR. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 66(11): 1367-1372
  41. 41.
    Melville B, Lucieer A and Aryal J. 2019. Classification of lowland native grassland communities using hyperspectral unmanned aircraft system (UAS) imagery in the Tasmanian midlands. Drones, 3(1): 5
  42. 42.
    Murdiyarso D, Purbopuspito J, Kauffman J B, Warren M W, Sasmito S D, Donato D C, Manuri S, Krisnawati H, Taberima S and Kurnianto S. 2015. The potential of Indonesian mangrove forests for global climate change mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 5(12): 1089-1092
  43. 43.
    Næsset E. 2002. Predicting forest stand characteristics with airborne scanning laser using a practical two-stage procedure and field data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 80(1): 88-99
  44. 44.
    Næsset E and Gobakken T. 2008. Estimation of above- and below-ground biomass across regions of the boreal forest zone using airborne laser. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112(6): 3079-3090
  45. 45.
    Neukermans G, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Kairo J G and Koedam N. 2008. Mangrove species and stand mapping in Gazi bay (Kenya) using quickbird satellite imagery. Journal of Spatial Science, 53(1): 75-86
  46. 46.
    Nishii R and Tanaka S. 1999. Accuracy and inaccuracy assessments in land-cover classification. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 37(1): 491-498
  47. 47.
    Peñuelas J, Filella I, Lloret P, Muñoz F and Vilajeliu M. 1995. Reflectance assessment of mite effects on apple trees. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 16(14): 2727-2733
  48. 48.
    Pontius Jr R G and Millones M. 2011. Death to Kappa: birth of quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement for accuracy assessment. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 32(15): 4407-4429
  49. 49.
    Prasad K A and Gnanappazham L. 2016. Multiple statistical approaches for the discrimination of mangrove species of Rhizophoraceae using transformed field and laboratory hyperspectral data. Geocarto International, 31(8): 891-912
  50. 50.
    Richter R, Reu B, Wirth C, Doktor D and Vohland M. 2016. The use of airborne hyperspectral data for tree species classification in a species-rich Central European forest area. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 52: 464-474
  51. 51.
    Sankey T, Donager J, McVay J and Sankey J B. 2017. UAV lidar and hyperspectral fusion for forest monitoring in the southwestern USA. Remote Sensing of Environment, 195: 30-43
  52. 52.
    Shahshahani B M and Landgrebe D A. 1994. The effect of unlabeled samples in reducing the small sample size problem and mitigating the Hughes phenomenon. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 32(5): 1087-1095
  53. 53.
    Shen X and Cao L. 2017. Tree-species classification in subtropical forests using airborne hyperspectral and LiDAR data. Remote Sensing, 9(11): 1180
  54. 54.
    Shi Y F, Wang T J, Skidmore A K and Heurich M. 2018. Important LiDAR metrics for discriminating forest tree species in Central Europe. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 137: 163-174
  55. 55.
    Thenkabail P S, Enclona E A, Ashton M S, Legg C and De Dieu M J. 2004a. Hyperion, IKONOS, ALI, and ETM+ sensors in the study of African rainforests. Remote Sensing of Environment, 90(1): 23-43
  56. 56.
    Thenkabail P S, Enclona E A, Ashton M S and Van Der Meer B. 2004b. Accuracy assessments of hyperspectral waveband performance for vegetation analysis applications. Remote Sensing of Environment, 91(3/4): 354-376
  57. 57.
    Thenkabail P S, Smith R B and De Pauw E. 2002. Evaluation of narrowband and broadband vegetation indices for determining optimal hyperspectral wavebands for agricultural crop characterization. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 68(6): 607-622
  58. 58.
    Vaglio Laurin G, Puletti N, Hawthorne W, Liesenberg V, Corona P, Papale D, Chen Q and Valentini R. 2016. Discrimination of tropical forest types, dominant species, and mapping of functional guilds by hyperspectral and simulated multispectral Sentinel-2 data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 176: 163-176
  59. 59.
    Wallace L, Lucieer A, Watson C and Turner D. 2012. Development of a UAV-LiDAR system with application to forest inventory. Remote Sensing, 4(6): 1519-1543
  60. 60.
    Wang D Z, Wan B, Qiu P H, Su Y J, Guo Q H, Wang R, Sun F and Wu X C. 2018a. Evaluating the performance of sentinel-2, Landsat 8 and pléiades-1 in mapping mangrove extent and species. Remote Sensing, 10(9): 1468
  61. 61.
    Wang D Z, Wan B, Qiu P H, Su Y J, Guo Q H and Wu X C. 2018b. Artificial mangrove species mapping using pléiades-1: an evaluation of pixel-based and object-based classifications with selected machine learning algorithms. Remote Sensing, 10(2): 294
  62. 62.
    Wang T, Zhang H S, Lin H and Fang C Y. 2016. Textural–spectral feature-based species classification of mangroves in Mai Po Nature Reserve from Worldview-3 imagery. Remote Sensing, 8(1): 24
  63. 63.
    Wang Y J. 2002. Research on The bird community and ecological evaluation of Sonneratia apetala + Sonneratia caseolaris in Futian, Shenzhen//Joining the WTO and China's Technology and Sustainable Development-Challenges and Opportunities, Responsibilities and Countermeasures. Chengdu: Science and Technology of China Press (王勇军. 2002. 深圳福田无瓣海桑+海桑人工林鸟类群落研究及生态评价//加入WTO和中国科技与可持续发展——挑战与机遇、责任和对策(上册). 成都: 中国科学技术出版社)
  64. 64.
    Wang Y R. 2018. Estimation of Mangrove Biomass in Shenzhen Bay Based on Multi-Source Remote Sensing Data. Chongqing: Southwest University
  65. 65.
    Warrens M J. 2015. Properties of the quantity disagreement and the allocation disagreement. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 36(5): 1439-1446
  66. 66.
    Wong F K K and Fung T. 2014. Combining EO-1 Hyperion and Envisat ASAR data for mangrove species classification in Mai Po Ramsar Site, Hong Kong. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 35(23): 7828-7856
  67. 67.
    Xia J S, Du P J, He X Y and Chanussot J. 2014. Hyperspectral remote sensing image classification based on rotation forest. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 11(1): 239-243
  68. 68.
    Xiao H Y, Zeng H, Zan Q J, Bai Y and Cheng H H. 2007. Decision tree model in extraction of mangrove community information using hyperspectral image data. Journal of Remote Sensing, 11(4): 531-537
  69. 69.
    Xu Y, Wang J J, Xia A Q, Zhang K Y, Dong X Y, Wu K P and Wu G F. 2019. Continuous wavelet analysis of leaf reflectance improves classification accuracy of mangrove species. Remote Sensing, 11(3): 254
  70. 70.
    Yin D M and Wang L. 2019. Individual mangrove tree measurement using UAV-based LiDAR data: possibilities and challenges. Remote Sensing of Environment, 223: 34-49
  71. 71.
    Zan Q J, Wang B S, Wang Y J and Li M G. 2003. Ecological Assessment on the Introduced Sonneratia caseolaris and S. apetala at the Mangrove Forest of Shenzhen Bay, China. Acta Botanica Sinica, 45(5): 544-551
  72. 72.
    Zhao Y J, Zeng Y, Zheng Z J, Dong W X, Zhao D, Wu B F and Zhao Q J. 2018. Forest species diversity mapping using airborne LiDAR and hyperspectral data in a subtropical forest in China. Remote Sensing of Environment, 213: 104-114
  73. 73.
    Zhong L H, Hu L and Zhou H. 2019. Deep learning based multi-temporal crop classification. Remote Sensing of Environment, 221: 430-443

قراءة النص الكامل

The above content is generated by Large Model Translation. The translated content is for reference only. We do not assume any commercial or legal responsibilty for any consequences arising from the use of our website