| Literature DB >> 35242160 |
Dongmiao Zhao1, Xuefei Li2, Xingtian Wang1, Xiang Shen3, Weijun Gao1,4.
Abstract
With the growth of the world population, cities expand and encroach on forests and plants, causing many environmental problems. Digital Twin, as the rapidly developing technique in recent years, provides the opportunity to implement the specific situation of forests and plants at present or in the future, which has great performance on predictive analysis and optimization. From the consideration of plants and forests, this study provides a comprehensive case study to research the relationship between urban development boundary and natural environment in a natural preserve in a coastal city. Multispectral data of the study area is collected by Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), combining satellite remote sensing (RS) historical data and geographic data to establish the digital twin model for plant identification. In conjunction with local Master planning of land use, the results of modeling are used to analyze the influences of urban construction on the natural environment, and the inappropriate aspects of the planning are discovered and summarized. In addition, 6 suggestions for effective management and planning strategies are presented. As plants and forests are effective factors of natural conditions, this study offered an objective assessment for the sustainability and rationality of urban planning with some guidance and bases.Entities:
Keywords: convolution neural network; digital twins; remote sensing; urbanization; vegetation research
Year: 2022 PMID: 35242160 PMCID: PMC8885539 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.840471
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Figure 1The process of research.
Figure 2Geographic coordinate information and boundaries of the research area.
Figure 3The process of remote sensing (RS) data acquisition.
Specifications of Landsat-7 and Landsat-8.
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 Coastal | 0.43–0.45 | 30 | |||
| 1 Bule | 0.45–0.515 | 30 | 2 Blue | 0.45–0.51 | 30 |
| 2 Green | 0.525–0.605 | 30 | 3 Green | 0.53–0.59 | 30 |
| 3 Red | 0.63–0.69 | 30 | 4 Red | 0.64–0.67 | 30 |
| 4 NIR | 0.775–0.90 | 30 | 5 NIR | 0.85–0.88 | 30 |
| 5 SWIR1 | 1.55–1.75 | 30 | 6 SWIR1 | 1.57–1.65 | 30 |
| 7 SWIR2 | 2.08–2.35 | 30 | 7 SWIR2 | 2.11–2.29 | 30 |
| 8 Pan | 0.52–0.9 | 15 | 8 Pan | 0.50–0.68 | 15 |
| 9 Cirrus | 1.36–1.38 | 30 | |||
| 6 TIR | 10.4–12.5 | 60 | 10 TIRS1 | 10.6–11.19 | 100 |
| 11 TIRS2 | 11.5–12.51 | 100 | |||
Figure 4Features of P4M.
Figure 5Locations of field investigation (a) and the images of vegetation (b–f).
The training data details.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Bare soil | 1,739 | 17.32 |
| Grass | 4,591 | 45.73 |
| Coniferous trees | 1,560 | 15.54 |
| Deciduous trees | 2,150 | 21.41 |
Figure 6Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) modeling process.
Figure 7The accuracy and loss variance during the training epochs.
The confusion matrix of CNN model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bare soil | 167 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| Grass | 5 | 455 | 4 | 0 |
| Coniferous trees | 0 | 22 | 192 | 17 |
| Deciduous trees | 0 | 13 | 20 | 135 |
The comparison of precision and recall of three methods.
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Bare soil | 83.52% | 83.32% | 97.54% | 86.60% | 97.09% | 94.35% |
| Grass | 78.94% | 74.71% | 86.53% | 80.98% | 90.98% | 98.06% |
| Coniferous trees | 34.44% | 7.95% | 43.11% | 39.68% | 88.89% | 83.12% |
| Deciduous trees | 44.45% | 72.92% | 55.88% | 71.66% | 88.82% | 80.36% |
Figure 8Landsat GNDVI results of years. (A) 2006.10, (B) 2010.10, (C) 2013.8, (D) 2017.9, (E) 2020.6, and (F) Legend.
Figure 9The variation trend of vegetation types.
Figure 10The coverage and distribution of land cover categories.
Figure 11Master planning of land use (2006–2020).