4.1 Article

Detecting the locations of Brazilian pepper trees in the everglades with a hyperspectral sensor

期刊

WEED TECHNOLOGY
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 437-442

出版社

WEED SCI SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1614/WT-03-174R

关键词

hyperspectral sensor; imaging spectrometer; invasive plant detection; whiskbroom scanner

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brazilian pepper is a small evergreen tree that forms dense colonies. It was introduced for horticultural use in the United States in the early 1800s and was widely distributed in Florida in the late 1920s. Previous remote-sensing projects to detect Brazilian pepper achieved moderate success and warranted additional research using a hyperspectral sensor. Detection with remote sensing is desirable because complete access to ground survey crews is not practical. The western half of the Everglades National Park was imaged at a 5-m spatial resolution with a hyperspectral sensor by Earth Search Sciences Inc. of Kalispell, MT, on December 12, 2000, and January 10, 2001. The sensor has 128 channels and spectral resolution between 450 and 2,500 nm. The purpose of this research was to develop spectral reflectance curves for Brazilian pepper and establish the accuracy of classified images. Classified images showed that a hyperspectral sensor could detect a pure Brazilian pepper pixel representing the center of an infestation but not mixed Brazilian pepper pixels at the sparsely populated edges. To define the sparse populations, images were classified using a spatial buffer (15- to 100-m radius) based on a low-omssional error image. A 25-m buffer reduced the amount of commissional error for Brazilian pepper in mangrove-dominated forest to 8.2% and buttonwood-dominated forest to 0%. Wider buffers did not significantly improve image accuracy when compared with the 25-m buffer distance. Results indicate that removal crews using hyperspectral images will be able to reliably find the colonies of Brazilian pepper but will not be able to use the images to find isolated scattered trees.

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

4.1
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