comparison of manual mapping and automated object-based image analysis of non-submerged aquatic vegetation from very-high-resolution uas images
Clicks: 329
ID: 243172
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
329 views
45 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #29 of 499 articles by views in Journal of pharmacological sciences
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 499 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Aquatic vegetation has important ecological and regulatory functions and should be monitored in order to detect ecosystem changes. Field data collection is often costly and time-consuming; remote sensing with unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) provides aerial images with sub-decimetre resolution and offers a potential data source for vegetation mapping. In a manual mapping approach, UAS true-colour images with 5-cm-resolution pixels allowed for the identification of non-submerged aquatic vegetation at the species level. However, manual mapping is labour-intensive, and while automated classification methods are available, they have rarely been evaluated for aquatic vegetation, particularly at the scale of individual vegetation stands. We evaluated classification accuracy and time-efficiency for mapping non-submerged aquatic vegetation at three levels of detail at five test sites (100 m × 100 m) differing in vegetation complexity. We used object-based image analysis and tested two classification methods (threshold classification and Random Forest) using eCognition®. The automated classification results were compared to results from manual mapping. Using threshold classification, overall accuracy at the five test sites ranged from 93% to 99% for the water-versus-vegetation level and from 62% to 90% for the growth-form level. Using Random Forest classification, overall accuracy ranged from 56% to 94% for the growth-form level and from 52% to 75% for the dominant-taxon level. Overall classification accuracy decreased with increasing vegetation complexity. In test sites with more complex vegetation, automated classification was more time-efficient than manual mapping. This study demonstrated that automated classification of non-submerged aquatic vegetation from true-colour UAS images was feasible, indicating good potential for operative mapping of aquatic vegetation. When choosing the preferred mapping method (manual versus automated) the desired level of thematic detail and the required accuracy for the mapping task needs to be considered.
| Reference Key |
husson2016remotecomparison
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Eva Husson;Frauke Ecke;Heather Reese |
| Journal | Journal of pharmacological sciences |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
10.3390/rs8090724
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.