415
Views
12
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Assessing the efficiency of multispectral satellite and airborne hyperspectral images for land cover mapping in an aquatic environment with emphasis on the water caltrop (Trapa natans)

ORCID Icon, , ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon
Pages 5192-5215 | Received 30 Apr 2018, Accepted 31 Dec 2018, Published online: 17 Feb 2019
 

ABSTRACT

A number of clear issues are pertinent when considering whether, or not, to use a remotely sensed dataset. We evaluate these issues here by comparing an aerial hyperspectral image at 1.5 m geometric resolution that comprises 128 narrow bands within a spectral range between 400 nm and 1,000 nm as well as a nine-band Landsat 8 image at 30.0 m geometric resolution. We therefore applied Random Forest (RF) and Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifiers utilizing different input data sets to determine the best thematic accuracy for both types of images by involving all possible bands and then minimized them using variable selection and dimension reduction via Minimum Noise Fraction (MNF). We then compared Landsat images to an aerial hyperspectral one. The results of this analysis revealed that band selections based on variable importance and MNF-transformation improved thematic accuracy assessed as Overall Accuracy (OA). Results reveal a 1.00% improvement in OA via variable selection as 59 bands instead of 128 bands and a 1.50% via MNF-transformation of the hyperspectral image. This improvement was 4.52% in the Landsat image when using a MNF-transformation compared to the best performances without transformation or variable selection. Data also showed that application of Landsat spectral range on hyperspectral bands resulted in different outcomes; specifically, SVM resulted in a 91.50% OA while RF resulted in 95.50% OA. Landscape ecology results show that use of the Landsat image provided fewer land cover patches and that differences encompassed 6.30% of the whole area. We therefore conclude that Landsat data can be used with a number of limitations for accurate ecological mapping.

Acknowledgments

Balázs Deák was supported by the NKFI KH 130338 project and by the Bolyai János Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. The publication is supported by the EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00022 project. This project was co-financed by the European Union and the European Social Fund. The research was financed by the Higher Education Institutional Excellence Programme of the Ministry of Human Capacities in Hungary, within the framework of the Fourth Thematic Program of the University of Debrecen.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

Balázs Deák was supported by the NKFI KH 130338 project and by the Bolyai János Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. The publication is supported by the EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00022 project. This project was co-financed by the European Union and the European Social Fund. The research was financed by the Higher Education Institutional Excellence Programme of the Ministry of Human Capacities in Hungary, within the framework of the Fourth Thematic Program of the University of Debrecen.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.