Classifying spatially heterogeneous wetland communities using machine learning algorithms and spectral and textural features

Mapping of wetlands (marsh vs. swamp vs. upland) is a common remote sensing application.Yet, discriminating between similar freshwater communities such as graminoid/sedge from remotely sensed imagery is more difficult. Most of this activity has been performed using medium to low resolution imagery....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Environmental monitoring and assessment 2015-05, Vol.187 (5), p.262-262, Article 262
Hauptverfasser: Szantoi, Zoltan, Escobedo, Francisco J., Abd-Elrahman, Amr, Pearlstine, Leonard, Dewitt, Bon, Smith, Scot
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Mapping of wetlands (marsh vs. swamp vs. upland) is a common remote sensing application.Yet, discriminating between similar freshwater communities such as graminoid/sedge from remotely sensed imagery is more difficult. Most of this activity has been performed using medium to low resolution imagery. There are only a few studies using high spatial resolution imagery and machine learning image classification algorithms for mapping heterogeneous wetland plant communities. This study addresses this void by analyzing whether machine learning classifiers such as decision trees (DT) and artificial neural networks (ANN) can accurately classify graminoid/sedge communities using high resolution aerial imagery and image texture data in the Everglades National Park, Florida. In addition to spectral bands, the normalized difference vegetation index, and first- and second-order texture features derived from the near-infrared band were analyzed. Classifier accuracies were assessed using confusion tables and the calculated kappa coefficients of the resulting maps. The results indicated that an ANN (multilayer perceptron based on back propagation) algorithm produced a statistically significantly higher accuracy (82.04 %) than the DT (QUEST) algorithm (80.48 %) or the maximum likelihood (80.56 %) classifier (α
ISSN:0167-6369
1573-2959
DOI:10.1007/s10661-015-4426-5