Assessing the impact of land use land cover changes on soil moisture and vegetation cover in Southern Punjab, Pakistan using multi-temporal satellite data

Figures & data

Figure 1. Study area and survey points of districts Lodhran, Vehari and Multan.

Table 1. LULC classification pattern [64].

LULC types	LULC Description
Forest area	Land which is covered by tree-crown areal density with trees capable of producing timber as well as other wood products.
Vegetation area	Natural vegetation area, vegetated land, crop fields, parks, and agricultural regions, etc.
build-up	residential and Commercial, buildings, and road systems.
Bare soil	Open land, empty and Unused areas, bare soil, and fallow areas etc.
Water-bodies	low lying lands, canals, lakes, marshy lands, swamps, River, and ponds.

Table 2. Details of Landsat images with their specification.

No.	Satellite/Sensor	Pixel size	Spectral resolution	Band used	Path/Row	Date
1	LANDSAT 5	30 m	Multispectral (6 bands)	1,2,3,4,5,7	150/039	March, 2000
					150/040	March, 2000
2	LANDSAT 7	30 m	Multispectral (8 bands)	1,2,3,4,5,7	150/039	March, 2007
					150/040	March, 2007
3	LANDSAT 8	30 m	Multispectral (11 bands)	1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9	150/039	March, 2014
					150/040	March, 2014
4	LANDSAT 8	30 m	Multispectral (11 bands)	1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9	150/039	March, 2021
					150/040	March, 2021

Figure 2. Details of classification and methodological steps.

Figure 3. The LULC maps of study area for (1) = 2000 (2) = 2007 (3) = 2014 (4) = 2021.

Figure 4. Area calculation of various LULC classes during 2000 to 2021.

Table 3. LULC changes 2000 to 2021 of the study area.

LULC categories	2000–2007		2007–2014		2014–2021		2000–2021
	Ha	%	Ha	%		Ha	%	Ha
Forest	−3051.43	−0.28	−4213.87	−0.38	−1397.8	−0.13	−8663.2	−0.79
Vegetation	−7354.58	−0.67	−10156.3	−0.93	−18911.3	−1.72	−36422.2	−3.32
Water	−6935.84	−0.63	−9578.06	−0.87	−7845.7	−0.71	−24359.7	−2.22
build-up	22242.95	2.02	30716.45	2.79	27604.3	2.52	80563.7	7.34
bare soil	−4901.06	−0.44	−6768.14	−0.61	550.5	0.05	−11118.7	−1.01

Table 4. Details of producer’s and user’s accuracy for various classes.

LULC Classes		Class and season
		Producer’s accuracy (%)					User’s accuracy (%)
		2000	2007	2014	2021	Avg	2000	2007	2014	2021	Avg
LULC classes	1	76.7	87.1	86.7	86.7	84.3	85.2	90	86.2	83.9	86.3
	2	88	86.4	93.3	85	88.2	79.3	76	93.5	82.6	82.8
	3	78.3	83.3	92	84.7	84.6	87.1	86.2	87.7	87.7	87.2
	4	80	86.7	87.5	79.2	83.4	73.3	78.7	88	76	79
	5	70	77.4	90	75.9	78.3	70	85.7	86.7	80.8	80.8

Where: 1 = Forest, 2 = Vegetation, 3 = Water, 4 = Build-up, and 5 = Bare soil.

Table 5. Summary of (kappa coefficients) as well as average accuracies.

Sr. No.	Year	Avg. Producer’s accuracy	Avg. User’s accuracy	Overall accuracy	K
1	2000	78.6	79	0.82	0.73
2	2007	84.2	83.3	0.84	0.76
3	2014	89.9	88.4	0.79	0.68
4	2021	82.3	82.2	0.83	0.70
Average		83.8	83.2	0.82	0.72

Figure 5. The NDVI maps of study area for (1) = 2000 (2) = 2007 (3) = 2014 (4) = 2021.

Table 6. Minimum and maximum values of NDVI and NDMI of the study area.

Years	NDVI Max	NDVI Min	NDVI Avg.	NDMI Max	NDMI Min	NDMI Avg.
2000	0.77	−0.32	0.225	0.78	−0.22	0.28
2007	0.72	−0.38	0.17	0.74	−0.25	0.245
2014	0.68	−0.3	0.19	0.67	−0.27	0.2
2021	0.54	−0.27	0.135	0.62	−0.33	0.145

Figure 6. The NDMI maps of study area for (1) = 2000 (2) = 2007 (3) = 2014 (4) = 2021.

Figure 7. Relationship between NDVI and NDMI in the study area.