
doi: 10.1117/1.3216031
handle: 1959.13/915985
The detection of long term trends in woody vegetation in Queensland, Australia, from the Landsat-5 TM and Landsat-7 ETM+ sensors requires the automated prediction of overstorey foliage projective cover (FPC) from a large volume of Landsat imagery. This paper presents a comparison of parametric (Multiple Linear Regression, Generalized Linear Models) and machine learning (Random Forests, Support Vector Machines) regression models for predicting overstorey FPC from Landsat-5 TM and Landsat-7 ETM+ imagery. Estimates of overstorey FPC were derived from field measured stand basal area (RMSE 7.26%) for calibration of the regression models. Independent estimates of overstorey FPC were derived from field and airborne LiDAR (RMSE 5.34%) surveys for validation of model predictions. The airborne LiDAR-derived estimates of overstorey FPC enabled the bias and variance of model predictions to be quantified in regional areas. The results showed all the parametric and machine learning models had similar prediction errors (RMSE < 10%), but the machine learning models had less bias than the parametric models at greater than similar to 60% overstorey FPC. All models showed greater than 10% bias in plant communities with high herbaceous or understorey FPC. The results of this work indicate that use of overstorey FPC products derived from Landsat-5 TM or Landsat-7 ETM+ data in Queensland using any of the regression models requires the assumption of senescent or absent herbaceous foliage at the time of image acquisition.
Forest Cover, stand basal area, Australian Savanna, Modis Data, Land-Cover, Aerial-Photography, Native Vegetation, fractional cover, 310, 1900 Earth and Planetary Sciences, Woody, Machine Learning Algorithms, machine learning, airborne LiDAR, Airborne Lidar, regression, Continuous Field
Forest Cover, stand basal area, Australian Savanna, Modis Data, Land-Cover, Aerial-Photography, Native Vegetation, fractional cover, 310, 1900 Earth and Planetary Sciences, Woody, Machine Learning Algorithms, machine learning, airborne LiDAR, Airborne Lidar, regression, Continuous Field
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 100 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
