| Literature DB >> 30274284 |
Kaori Otsu1, Magda Pla2, Jordi Vayreda3, Lluís Brotons4,5,6.
Abstract
The pine processionary moth (Thaumetopoea pityocampa Dennis and Schiff.), one of the major defoliating insects in Mediterranean forests, has become an increasing threat to the forest health of the region over the past two decades. After a recent outbreak of T. pityocampa in Catalonia, Spain, we attempted to estimate the damage severity by capturing the maximum defoliation period over winter between pre-outbreak and post-outbreak images. The difference in vegetation index (dVI) derived from Landsat 8 was used as the change detection indicator and was further calibrated with Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) imagery. Regression models between predicted dVIs and observed defoliation degrees by UAV were compared among five selected dVIs for the coefficient of determination. Our results found the highest R-squared value (0.815) using Moisture Stress Index (MSI), with an overall accuracy of 72%, as a promising approach for estimating the severity of defoliation in affected areas where ground-truth data is limited. We concluded with the high potential of using UAVs as an alternative method to obtain ground-truth data for cost-effectively monitoring forest health. In future studies, combining UAV images with satellite data may be considered to validate model predictions of the forest condition for developing ecosystem service tools.Entities:
Keywords: Thaumetopoea pityocampa; change detection; forest defoliation; unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); vegetation index
Year: 2018 PMID: 30274284 PMCID: PMC6211096 DOI: 10.3390/s18103278
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Study area showing: (a) Location of Solsona (41°59′40″ N, 1°31′04″ E), Catalonia (solid gray line), Spain; (b) one of the most severely affected areas mapped by rural agents (2016).
Vegetation indices derived from Landsat 8 multispectral bands.
| Index | Acronym | Formula | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Middle Infrared Wavelengths | MID | Band 6 + Band 7 | [ |
| Moisture Stress Index | MSI |
| [ |
| Normalized Difference Moisture Index | NDMI |
| [ |
| Normalized Difference Vegetation Index | NDVI |
| [ |
| Normalized Burn Ratio | NBR |
| [ |
Figure 2Observed defoliations based on UAV imagery showing: (a) the location of UAV sample images captured in photos and videos where sketch map polygons were identified as most severely affected areas in 2016; (b) an example of the orthomosaic stratified by land cover and defoliation degree (NF—not forested, L—low, M—medium, H—high) showing selected grid cells of 30 m × 30 m; (c) visual interpretation of defoliation in percentage per grid cell (50% in this sample).
Selected UAV sample images for calibration in each category of defoliation severity.
| Severity | Defoliation (%) | Number of Samples |
|---|---|---|
| Nil | 0–5 | 10 |
| Low | 10–30 | 23 |
| Medium | 35–65 | 8 |
| High | 70–100 | 9 |
Figure 3Scatterplots of defoliation (%) as response variable and dVI as predictor variable: (a) dMID; (b) dMSI; (c) dNDMI; (d) dNDVI; (e) dNBR.
Summary of logistic regression models.
| Index | Equation | R2 (McFadden’s) |
|---|---|---|
| dMID |
| 0.740 |
| dMSI |
| 0.815 |
| dNDMI |
| 0.749 |
| dNDVI |
| 0.787 |
| dNBR |
| 0.776 |
Threshold limits and the range of vegetation indices.
| Index | Defoliation (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 35 | 70 | |
| dMID | −222 | −599 | −949 |
| dMSI | −125 | −295 | −453 |
| dNDMI | 963 | 2081 | 3121 |
| dNDVI | 743 | 1636 | 2466 |
| dNBR | 1034 | 2172 | 3229 |
Figure 4Severity map of defoliation classified by threshold limits of dMSI representing pine-dominant stands (excluding non-forested areas and stands dominated by other tree species).
Confusion matrix of a threshold classification using 50 pixel values of dMSI predicted from Landsat 8 in reference to four classes observed from UAV.
| Class | Predicted (Landsat 8) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nil | Low | Medium | High | Total | Producer’s Accuracy | ||
|
| Nil |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0.90 |
| Low | 2 |
| 4 | 0 | 23 | 0.74 | |
| Medium | 0 | 3 |
| 1 | 8 | 0.50 | |
| High | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 9 | 0.67 | |
| Total | 11 | 21 | 11 | 7 |
| ||
| User’s Accuracy | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.36 | 0.86 |
| ||