4.7 Article

Assessment of Forest Ecological Function Levels Based on Multi-Source Data and Machine Learning

Journal

FORESTS
Volume 14, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f14081630

Keywords

multi-source data; machine learning; forest ecological function level; forest ecological function index

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study used three machine learning algorithms to estimate forest ecological function levels based on multi-source data, including Sentinel-2 optical remote sensing images and digital elevation model (DEM) and forest resource planning and design survey data. The experimental results showed that Random Forest (RF) was the optimal model, followed by CatBoost and LightGBM. The proposed algorithm has lower cost and stronger timeliness compared to traditional methods.
Forest ecological function is one of the key indicators reflecting the quality of forest resources. The traditional weighting method to assess forest ecological function is based on a large amount of ground survey data; it is accurate but costly and time-consuming. This study utilized three machine learning algorithms to estimate forest ecological function levels based on multi-source data, including Sentinel-2 optical remote sensing images and digital elevation model (DEM) and forest resource planning and design survey data. The experimental results showed that Random Forest (RF) was the optimal model, with overall accuracy of 0.82, recall of 0.66, and F1 of 0.62, followed by CatBoost (overall accuracy = 0.82, recall = 0.62, F1 = 0.58) and LightGBM (overall accuracy = 0.76, recall = 0.61, F1 = 0.58). Except for the indicators from remote sensing images and DEM data, the five ground survey indicators of forest origin (QI_YUAN), tree age group (LING_ZU), forest category (LIN_ZHONG), dominant species (YOU_SHI_SZ), and tree age (NL) were used in the modeling and prediction. Compared to the traditional methods, the proposed algorithm has lower cost and stronger timeliness.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available