| Literature DB >> 31660266 |
Minerva Singh1, Damian Evans2, Jean-Baptiste Chevance3, Boun Suy Tan4, Nicholas Wiggins5, Leaksmy Kong2, Sakada Sakhoeun3.
Abstract
This study develops a modelling framework by utilizing multi-sensor imagery for classifying different forest and land use types in the Phnom Kulen National Park (PKNP) in Cambodia. Three remote sensing datasets (Landsat optical data, ALOS L-band data and LiDAR derived Canopy Height Model (CHM)) were used in conjunction with three different machine learning (ML) regression techniques (Support Vector Machines (SVM), Random Forests (RF) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN)). These ML methods were implemented on (a) Landsat spectral data, (b) Landsat spectral band & ALOS backscatter data, and (c) Landsat spectral band, ALOS backscatter data, & LiDAR CHM data. The Landsat-ALOS combination produced more accurate classification results (95% overall accuracy with SVM) compared to Landsat-only bands for all ML models. Inclusion of LiDAR CHM (which is a proxy for vertical canopy heights) improved the overall accuracy to 98%. The research establishes that majority of PKNP is dominated by cashew plantations and the nearly intact forests are concentrated in the more inaccessible parts of the park. The findings demonstrate how different RS datasets can be used in conjunction with different ML models to map forests that had undergone varying levels of degradation and plantations. ©2019 Singh et al.Entities:
Keywords: ALOS PALSAR; Deforestation; Landsat; LiDAR; Machine learning; Plantations; Remote sensing; SE Asia; Support vector machines; Tropical forests
Year: 2019 PMID: 31660266 PMCID: PMC6814064 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7841
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Location of the Phnom Kulen National Park (PKNP) in Cambodia.
Land use/cover types and their characteristics.
| Cashew Plantations | Cashew monocultures (created as result of clear felling forests). |
| Lightly Logged Forests | There was no previous record of these forests having undergone extensive selective logging and/or resource extraction. Qualitative field monitoring by JBC indicates light selective logging may have started occurring after 2015. |
| Degraded Forests | These forests have undergone several rounds of logging and resource extraction. These are mostly scrub forests with less than 50% canopy cover. |
| Selectively Logged Forests | These forests had a greater than 50% forest cover but most of the large Dipterocarp and rosewood trees had been selectively logged. Selective logging of these species was ascertained by the presence of tree stumps and confirmed by the forest rangers. |
| Regenerating for More Than 10 Years | These forests were clear felled/burnt for agricultural use more than a decade ago and were regenerating for more than 10 years as of March 2016. |
| Regenerating for Less Than 10 Years | These forests were clear felled/burnt for agricultural use less than a decade ago and were regenerating for less than 10 years as of March 2016. |
| Bare Earth/New Cassava Plantations | Cassava plantations (as of 2016) which had the crops, scrubby vegetation and bare earth patches. |
Parameters of the classifiers used in building the classification models.
| Classifier | Parameter | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ANN | size | decay | rang |
| 10 | 5e-6 | 0.1 | |
| RF | mtry | ntree | |
| 6 | 500 | ||
| SVM | kernel | cost | gamma |
| “radial” | 10 | 0.1 | |
| “optimal” | 9 | 1 | |
Figure 2Spectral Behaviour of the Different Landcover Classes in PKNP.
Figure 3(A) Varaition in HH/HV across different land cover classes, (B) variation in HV across the different landcover classes, (C) variation in RFDI across different land cover classes, (D) variation in CHM across different land cover classes.
Overall accuracy of the different ML models and their corresponding Kappa values.
| Landsat spectral bands | 56.0% (0.45) | 62.0% (0.54) | 28.5% (0.16) |
| Landsat spectral bands + ALOS metrics | 95.0% (0.94) | 63.0% (0.54) | 33.0% (0.21) |
| Landsat spectral bands + ALOS metrics LiDAR CHM | 98.0% (0.98) | 66.3% (0.59) | 31.0% (0.19) |
Figure 4Land Cover Map of PKNP.
Comparison of producer’s and user’s accuracy levels for Landsat-ALOS-LiDAR data SVM model.
| % User’s accuracies | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 87.5 |
| % Producer accuracies | 100 | 100 | 100 | 94 | 100 | 100 | 100 |