4.3 Article

A Comparison between Sentinel-2 and Landsat 8 OLI Satellite Images for Soil Salinity Distribution Mapping Using a Deep Learning Convolutional Neural Network

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING
卷 48, 期 3, 页码 452-468

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/07038992.2022.2056435

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper compares the suitability of Sentinel-2 and Landsat 8 OLI images for detecting and mapping soil salinity distribution using a deep learning convolutional neural network approach. The results show that Sentinel-2 is more suitable than Landsat 8 OLI for this purpose, and the DL-CNN approach supports fast and reliable image analysis and classification.
In this paper, we aim to compare the suitability of Sentinel-2 and Landsat 8 OLI images for detecting and mapping soil salinity distribution (SSD) using a deep learning convolutional neural network (DL-CNN) approach. We first identified and selected six SSD predisposing variables to train the models. These variables are the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), land use, soil types, geomorphology, land surface temperature, and evaporation rate. Next, we collected 219 ground control points from the top 20 cm of the soil surface and randomly divided them into training (70%) and validation (30%) datasets. We then evaluated the different activation, loss/cost, and optimization functions and, finally, employed ReLu, Cross-Entropy, and Adam as the most effective activation function, loss/cost function, and optimizer, respectively. The results showed that the Sentinel-2 image (94.78% overall accuracy and a Kappa of 93.14%) is more suitable for detecting and mapping SSD than the Landsat 8 OLI image (91.45% overall accuracy and a Kappa of 90.45%). Our findings also demonstrated that the DL-CNN approach can support fast and reliable image analysis and classification. As such, this research is a promising step toward understanding, controlling, and managing the complex mechanisms of soil salinization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据