4.3 Article

Mapping Robinia pseudoacacia forest health in the Yellow River delta by using high-resolution IKONOS imagery and object-based image analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED REMOTE SENSING
Volume 10, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SPIE-SOC PHOTO-OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1117/1.JRS.10.045022

Keywords

IKONOS; estimation of scale parameters; geometry/topology assessment criteria; object-based image analysis; forest health; Robinia pseudoacacia

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation of China [41471419, 40871230]
  2. 111 Project Ministry of Education
  3. State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs of China [B08048]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Robinia pseudoacacia forest in the Yellow River delta of China has been planted since the 1970s, and a large area of dieback of the forest has occurred since the 1990s. To assess the condition of the R. pseudoacacia forest in three forest areas (i.e., Gudao, Machang, and Abandoned Yellow River) in the delta, we combined an estimation of scale parameters tool and geometry/topology assessment criteria to determine the optimal scale parameters, selected optimal predictive variables determined by stepwise discriminant analysis, and compared object-based image analysis (OBIA) and pixel-based approaches using IKONOS data. The experimental results showed that the optimal segmentation scale is 5 for both the Gudao and Machang forest areas, and 12 for the Abandoned Yellow River forest area. The results produced by the OBIA method were much better than those created by the pixel-based method. The overall accuracy of the OBIA method was 93.7% (versus 85.4% by the pixel-based) for Gudao, 89.0% (versus 72.7%) for Abandoned Yellow River, and 91.7% (versus 84.4%) for Machang. Our analysis results demonstrated that the OBIA method was an effective tool for rapidly mapping and assessing the health levels of forest. (C) 2016 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available