| Literature DB >> 35808547 |
Jin Wang1,2, Guangxue Li2, Feiyong Chen1.
Abstract
Taking representative Tamarix chinensis forest in the national-level special protection zone for ocean ecology of Changyi city in Shandong province of China as the objective, this research studied how to use remote sensing technology to evaluate natural eco-environment and analyze spatiotemporal variation. In the process of constructing the index system of ecological environment effect evaluation based on RSEI (Remote Sensing Ecological Index) model, AOD (Aerosol Optical Depth), Salinity, Greenness, Wetness, Heat and Dryness, which can represent the ecological environment of the reserve, were selected as the corresponding indexes. In order to accurately obtain the value of the RSEI of the study area and to retain the information of the original indexes to the greatest extent, the SPCA (spatial principal components analysis) method was applied in this research. Finally, the RSEI was applied to evaluate the ecological and environmental effects and to analyze the spatial characteristics and spatiotemporal evolution of the study area. The results not only provide scientific evidence and technical guidance for the protection, transformation and management of the Tamarix chinensis forest in the protection zone but also push the development of the universal model of the ecological environment quality with a remote sensing evaluation index system at a regional scale.Entities:
Keywords: Changyi; China; Shandong; comprehensive evaluation; eco-environment effect; remote sensing; spatial analysis; tamarix forest
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35808547 PMCID: PMC9269760 DOI: 10.3390/s22135052
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Location of study area.
Time, category and basis of remote sensing image selection.
| Time | Image Category | Basis of Image Selection |
|---|---|---|
| 9/2000 | Landsat-4/5-TM | Original state of the reserve |
| 9/2007 | Landsat-5-TM | In 2007, the State Oceanic Administration approved the establishment of the reserve |
| 9/2014 | Landsat-8-OLI/TIRS | The begins of ecological restoration in reserve with large scale |
| 9/2019 | Landsat-8-OLI/TIRS | More than 200 hm2 Tamarix forest repaired |
| 9/2019 | HJ1-CCD | AOD inversion |
| 9/2019 | Sentinel/2A/MSIL1C | RSEI of current reserve |
Figure 2The principle of 6S model.
The lookup table of AOD for HJ-1-CCD data(part).
|
| T |
|
|
|
| AOD-τ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.13766 | 0.83489 | 0.06554 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00010 |
| 0.13766 | 0.83489 | 0.06554 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0.00010 |
| 0.13766 | 0.83489 | 0.06554 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 0.00010 |
| 0.13766 | 0.83489 | 0.06554 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 0.00010 |
| 0.17874 | 0.73011 | 0.08739 | 6 | 3 | 48 | 0.25 |
| 0.17874 | 0.73011 | 0.08706 | 6 | 3 | 60 | 0.25 |
| 0.17874 | 0.73011 | 0.08671 | 6 | 3 | 72 | 0.25 |
| 0.17874 | 0.73011 | 0.08637 | 6 | 3 | 84 | 0.25 |
| 0.26870 | 0.28913 | 0.17870 | 24 | 30 | 96 | 1.50 |
| 0.26870 | 0.28913 | 0.17731 | 24 | 30 | 108 | 1.50 |
| 0.26870 | 0.28913 | 0.17640 | 24 | 30 | 120 | 1.50 |
| 0.26870 | 0.28913 | 0.17588 | 24 | 30 | 132 | 1.50 |
| 0.28252 | 0.12120 | 0.32403 | 60 | 60 | 144 | 1.95 |
| 0.28252 | 0.12120 | 0.33546 | 60 | 60 | 156 | 1.95 |
| 0.28252 | 0.12120 | 0.34339 | 60 | 60 | 168 | 1.95 |
| 0.28252 | 0.12120 | 0.34623 | 60 | 60 | 180 | 1.95 |
Figure 3The inversion results of AOD in the study area based on HJ1A-CCD data.
Correlation coefficient between reflectivity (Sentinel-2A) and salinity.
| Sentinel-2A | Band 2-Blue | Band 3-Green | Band 4-Red | Band 5-Vegetation Red Edge | Band 6-Vegetation Red Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Central wavelength/μm | 0.49 | 0.56 | 0.665 | 0.705 | 0.74 |
| Correlation coefficient/Ri | 0.22 | 0.09 | 0.38 | 0.03 | −0.59 |
| Mean square deviation/σi | 107.28 | 144.97 | 268.45 | 224.85 | 302.28 |
| Sentinel-2A | Band 7-Vegetation Red Edge Band | Band 8-NIR Band | Band 8A-Vegetation Red Edge Band | Band 11-SWIR Band | Band 12-SWIR Band |
| Central wavelength/μm | 0.783 | 0.842 | 0.865 | 1.61 | 2.19 |
| Correlation coefficient/Ri | −0.59 | −0.59 | −0.61 | 0.31 | 0.46 |
| Mean square deviation/σi | 330.19 | 312.58 | 365.47 | 402.60 | 463.91 |
Note: Band 1, Band 9 and Band 10 are aerosol monitoring band, water vapor monitoring band an ocean current monitoring band, respectively. Because these three bands are low in resolution, so there does not exist correlation calculation between reflectivity of these bands and the soluble salt content of soils [21].
Diagnostic index of reflectivity with each band (Sentinel-2A).
| Band | Band | Band | Band | Band | Band | Band | Band | Band | Band | Band |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |Di| | 0.20 | 0.06 | 0.14 | 0.01 | 0.20 | 0.18 | 0.19 | |−0.17| | 0.08 | 0.10 |
Verification of the inversion results of soluble salt content of soils by multiple linear regression model and BP neural network model.
| No. | Soluble Salt Content of Soils-Measured g/Kg | Multiple Linear Regression Model | BP Neural Network Inversion Model | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soluble Salt Content of Soils-Inversion g/Kg | Error | Relative Error | Soluble Salt Content of Soils-Inversion g/Kg | Error | Relative Error | ||
| 1 | 8.18 | 14.70 | 6.52 | 44.34 | 8.771 | 0.735 | 8.99 |
| 2 | 1.53 | 10.96 | 9.43 | 86.04 | 1.490 | 0.068 | 4.47 |
| 3 | 12.4 | 6.89 | −5.51 | −79.95 | 1.660 | 1.592 | 12.84 |
| 4 | 0.08 | 3.12 | 3.04 | 97.43 | 0.077 | −0.003 | −4.00 |
| 5 | 0.22 | 4.60 | 4.38 | 95.22 | 0.129 | −0.091 | −41.59 |
| 6 | 0.14 | 3.26 | 3.12 | 95.71 | 0.151 | 0.011 | 7.78 |
| 7 | 0.07 | 4.37 | 4.30 | 98.40 | 0.134 | 0.057 | 80.90 |
| 8 | 0.04 | 3.56 | 3.52 | 98.88 | 0.008 | 0.014 | 34.27 |
| 9 | 0.06 | 2.98 | 2.92 | 97.99 | 0.027 | −0.017 | −28.92 |
| 10 | 0.08 | 3.61 | 3.53 | 97.78 | 0.042 | −0.038 | −47.44 |
Figure 4The distribution of soluble salt content of soils by multiple linear regression model in study area based on multiple linear regression model (left) and BP neural network inversion model (right).
Figure 5The distribution of wetness in study area.
Figure 6The distribution of dryness in study area.
Figure 7The distribution of greenness in study area.
Figure 8The distribution of temperature surface in study area.
The statistics of mean, standard deviation and RESI for study area.
| Index | Mean | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|
| Greenness | 0.32 | 0.11 |
| Wetness | −0.046 | 0.029 |
| Dryness | −0.064 | 0.069 |
| Temperature | 26.60 | 0.82 |
| Salinity | 6.72 | 4.26 |
| AOD | 0.14 | 0.23 |
| RSEI | 0.61 | 0.21 |
The analysis result by SPCA in study area.
| Index | PCA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC5 | PC6 | |
| Greenness | 0.31 | 0.27 | 0.53 | 0.33 | 0.26 | 0.61 |
| Wetness | 0.65 | 0.35 | −0.34 | 0.37 | 0.10 | −0.44 |
| Dryness | −0.31 | 0.44 | 0.34 | −0.25 | 0.57 | −0.45 |
| Temperature | −0.06 | −0.48 | −0.38 | 0.02 | 0.77 | 0.17 |
| Salinity | −0.45 | 0.20 | −0.12 | −0.83 | 0.00 | 0.24 |
| AOD | −0.42 | −0.58 | 0.58 | −0.11 | −0.02 | −0.38 |
| Eigenvalue | 0.30 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
| Contribution rate of eigenvalue/% | 56.95 | 24.70 | 7.95 | 7.27 | 2.42 | 0.70 |
Correlation matrix of each factor and RSEI.
| Index | Greenness | Wetness | Dryness | Salinity | AOD | Temperature | RSEI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greenness | 1.00 | 0.64 | −0.39 | −0.26 | −0.41 | −0.34 | 0.28 |
| Wetness | 0.64 | 1.00 | −0.01 | −0.01 | −0.01 | −0.01 | 0.39 |
| Dryness | −0.39 | −0.01 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | −0.93 |
| Salinity | −0.26 | −0.01 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | −0.47 |
| AOD | −0.41 | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.00 | 0.01 | −0.34 |
| Temperature | −0.34 | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 1.00 | −0.96 |
| Mean | 0.51 | 0.28 | 0.24 | 0.21 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.62 |
Note: the mean value of correlation coefficient is calculated by the absolute value of the correlation between one index and other indexes.
Figure 9Spatial distribution and classification of RSEI in study area (9 September 2019).
PC1 and RSEI (Mean) of 4 nodes in study area.
| Year | PC1 | RSEI/Mean | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greenness | Wetness | Dryness | Temperature | ||
| 2000 | 0.44 | 0.73 | −0.16 | 0.50 | 0.33 |
| 2007 | 0.65 | 0.24 | −0.43 | 0.58 | 0.32 |
| 2014 | 0.60 | 0.32 | 0.59 | −0.43 | 0.48 |
| 2019 | 0.55 | 0.77 | 0.09 | 0.31 | 0.58 |
The area/km2 and ratio/% of ecological grade in study area.
| RSEI Grade | 2000 | 2007 | 2014 | 2019 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area | Ratio | Area | Ratio | Area | Ratio | Area | Ratio | |
| Worst (0–0.2) | 2.15 | 13.91 | 3.77 | 24.34 | 0.04 | 0.27 | 1.26 | 8.17 |
| Worse (0.2–0.4) | 8.99 | 58.07 | 7.06 | 45.61 | 1.37 | 8.86 | 2.40 | 15.49 |
| Medium (0.4–0.6) | 3.71 | 23.98 | 3.95 | 25.50 | 6.42 | 41.44 | 3.25 | 21.01 |
| Good (0.6–0.8) | 0.47 | 3.03 | 0.66 | 4.27 | 5.83 | 37.66 | 5.57 | 35.96 |
| Excellent (0.8–1.0) | 0.16 | 1.02 | 0.04 | 0.28 | 1.82 | 11.76 | 3.00 | 19.37 |
| Total | 15.48 | 100% | 15.48 | 100% | 15.48 | 100% | 15.48 | 100% |
The area/km2 and ratio/% of RSEI of dynamic change.
| Time Range | 2000–2007 | 2007–2014 | 2014–2019 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Area | Ratio | Area | Ratio | Area | Ratio |
| Worse (RSEI < −0.10) | 7.42 | 47.93 | 2.90 | 18.75 | 3.21 | 20.71 |
| Unchanged (0.10 ≥ RSEI ≥ 0.10) | 4.84 | 31.26 | 1.29 | 8.31 | 3.10 | 20.02 |
| Better (RSEI > 0.10) | 3.22 | 20.81 | 11.29 | 72.94 | 9.17 | 59.27 |
| Total | 15.48 | 100.00 | 15.48 | 100.00 | 15.48 | 100.00 |
Figure 10The spatiotemporal changes of eco-environment in study area.