Evaluation of Remote Sensing Products for Wetland Mapping in the Irtysh River Basin
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Sources
2.2.1. GlobeLand30 V2020 Dataset
2.2.2. CGLS-LC100 Dataset
2.2.3. ESRI_Global-LULC_10m Dataset
2.2.4. ESA WorldCover 10 m v100 Dataset
2.2.5. GWL_FCS30 Dataset
2.2.6. FROM_GLC10_2017 Dataset
2.2.7. GLC_FCS30-2020 Dataset
2.2.8. ESA CCI-LC Dataset
2.2.9. MCD12Q1 v061 Dataset
2.2.10. GLC2000 Dataset
2.2.11. AGLC-2015 Dataset
2.3. Data Pre-Processing
2.4. Research Method
2.4.1. Descriptive Analysis of Wetland Areas and Types
- (1)
- Wetland Category Selection
- (2)
- Wetland Area Calculation
- (3)
- Wetland Distribution Description
2.4.2. Spatial and Temporal Variability Analysis of Wetlands
- (1)
- Jaccard Similarity Coefficient
- (2)
- Kappa Coefficient Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Overview of Wetland Areas and Types
3.2. Assessment of Consistency and Accuracy of Wetland Products
- ESRI_Global-LULC_10m and FROM_GLC10_2017 exhibit the highest agreement in wetland identification, with a Jaccard coefficient of 0.971. This alignment is attributed to the shared utilization of 10-m-resolution Sentinel-2 data and the application of deep learning models such as random forest model and Impact Observatory’s deep learning AI land classification model in their classification processes;
- GlobeLand30 V2020 and MCD12Q1 v061 demonstrate the lowest agreement in wetland identification, featuring a Jaccard coefficient of only 0.051. This discrepancy is likely due to variations in data sources and classification schemes. GlobeLand30 V2020 utilizes multi-source data with 10 land cover classes, while MCD12Q1 v061 relies on MODIS data with 17 land cover classes and a resolution of 500 m;
- AGLC-2015 showcases a high degree of consistency, with a mean Jaccard coefficient of 0.595 across all products. This robust agreement is attributed to the data fusion strategy of AGLC-2015, integrating information from GlobeLand30, FROM-GLC, and GLC-FCS30,
- MCD12Q1 v061 exhibits lower agreement, with a mean Jaccard coefficient of 0.102. This could be due to its utilization of MODIS data at a resolution of 500 m and the application of data mining and machine learning algorithms for classification.
- Notably, the Kappa coefficient between GWL_FCS30 and GLC_FCS30-2020 is the highest at 0.815, indicating a robust consistency in wetland classification. This can be attributed to their detailed wetland classification system and hierarchical classification strategy, enabling the distinction of more wetland types and subtypes and capturing spatial details and changes,
- Conversely, the Kappa coefficients between FROM_GLC10_2017 and MCD12Q1 v061, FROM_GLC10_2017 and GLC2000, and FROM_GLC10_2017 and GlobeLand30 V2020 are the lowest, reaching only −0.001. This suggests a low consistency in wetland classification, potentially stemming from differences in data sources, resolutions, classification schemes, and methods, leading to deviations in wetland delineation and characterization.
3.3. Spatial and Temporal Distribution Comparison of Wetlands
- (1)
- Overall Comparison
- (2)
- Local Comparison
- GWL_FCS30 and GLC_FCS30-2020 products exhibit excellence in identifying small-scale and complex wetlands, showcasing their capability to capture spatial morphological details such as band or network distribution in swamp wetlands. However, GLC_FCS30-2020 may encounter instances of misclassification;
- The ESA WorldCover 10 m product excels in delineating wetland extension contours with higher accuracy;
- GlobeLand30 V2020 may exhibit misclassifications for certain land features,
- ESRI_Global-LULC_10m and ESA CCI-LC products may have difficulty identifying or misclassifying some fine wetland areas.
- (3)
- Detailed Comparison
3.4. Factors Influencing Variances in Wetland Information Extraction
- (1)
- Characteristics of Data Sources
- (2)
- Spatial Resolution
- (3)
- Classification Schemes and Algorithms
- (4)
- Validation Methods
- (5)
- Strengths and Weaknesses of Considered RS Products
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- Significant Disparities in Wetland Description: Considerable differences were observed in the depiction of wetlands within the Irtysh River Basin among various RS products, attributed to factors such as data sources, spatial resolution, classification schemes, algorithms, and validation methods. Notably, the GWL_FCS30 product exhibited the highest wetland area extraction, while the AGLC-2015 product yielded the lowest. GWL_FCS30 demonstrated an enhanced capacity to portray internal morphological features, presenting clearer and more continuous boundary information. The ESRI_Global-LULC_10m and FROM_GLC10_2017 products exhibited superior classification consistency;
- Key Influencing Factors on Information Quality: Central to the precision of wetland information extraction in the Irtysh River Basin are the influencing factors of data sources, classification methods, and validation schemes. Achieving high-quality wetland products necessitates obtaining raw data with elevated spatial and temporal resolution through the fusion of multiple sources. It is imperative to establish a detailed and scientifically grounded local wetland classification system, employ effective methods to unlock the full value of the data, and adhere to standardized and scientifically rigorous validation schemes to ensure result reliability,
- Guidance for Future Endeavors: This study serves as a pivotal guide and reference for the selection and optimization of subsequent wetland products. It contributes valuable insights for the ongoing innovation and development of RS technology, providing a robust data foundation for informed wetland protection and management decisions. Nonetheless, certain limitations, including a restricted sample area, inadequate validation samples, and the absence of time-series products, underscore the necessity for future expansion and refinement in subsequent studies.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- McCarthy, M.J.; Radabaugh, K.R.; Moyer, R.P.; Muller-Karger, F.E. Enabling efficient, large-scale high-spatial resolution wetland mapping using satellites. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 208, 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xi, Y.; Peng, S.; Ciais, P.; Chen, Y. Future impacts of climate change on inland Ramsar wetlands. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2020, 11, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, D.; Wang, Z.; Du, B.; Li, L.; Tian, Y.; Jia, M.; Zeng, Y.; Song, K.; Jiang, M.; Wang, Y. National wetland mapping in China: A new product resulting from object-based and hierarchical classification of Landsat 8 OLI images. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2020, 164, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fluet-Chouinard, E.; Stocker, B.D.; Zhang, Z.; Malhotra, A.; Melton, J.R.; Poulter, B.; Kaplan, J.O.; Goldewijk, K.K.; Siebert, S.; Minayeva, T.; et al. Extensive global wetland loss over the past three centuries. Nature 2023, 614, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ludwig, C.; Walli, A.; Schleicher, C.; Weichselbaum, J.; Riffler, M. A highly automated algorithm for wetland detection using multi-temporal optical satellite data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 224, 333–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, S.; Niu, Z.; Chen, Y. Global Wetland Datasets: A Review. Wetlands 2017, 37, 807–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davidson, N.C. How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2014, 65, 934–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, W.; Wang, W.; Chen, Y.; Liu, J.; Tang, H.; Hou, P.; Yang, Y. Quantifying driving forces of urban wetlands change in Beijing City. J. Geogr. Sci. 2012, 22, 301–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, L.; Li, G.; Ouyang, N.; Mu, F.; Yan, F.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, X. Analyzing Coastal Wetland Degradation and its Key Restoration Technologies in the Coastal Area of Jiangsu, China. Wetlands 2018, 38, 525–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davidson, N.C.; Finlayson, C.M. Extent, regional distribution and changes in area of different classes of wetland. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2018, 69, 1525–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, L.; Liu, F.; Zhang, H. Recent changes in wetlands on the Tibetan Plateau: A review. J. Geogr. Sci. 2015, 25, 879–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.G. The evolution of coastal wetland policy in developed countries and Korea. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2010, 53, 562–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Let, M.; Pal, S. Socio-ecological well-being perspectives of wetland loss scenario: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 326, 116692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brinson, M.M.; Malvárez, A.I. Temperate freshwater wetlands: Types, status, and threats. Environ. Conserv. 2002, 29, 115–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junk, W.J. Long-term environmental trends and the future of tropical wetlands. Environ. Conserv. 2003, 29, 414–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S.; Kalantari, Z.; Land, M.; Destouni, G. Change Drivers and Impacts in Arctic Wetland Landscapes—Literature Review and Gap Analysis. Water 2019, 11, 722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chakraborty, S.K.; Sanyal, P.; Ray, R. Basics of Remote Sensing Techniques Applicable in Wetlands Ecosystems. In Wetlands Ecology: Eco-Biological Uniqueness of a Ramsar Site (East Kolkata Wetlands, India); Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 303–377. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, M.; Li, J.; Sheng, C.; Xu, J.; Wu, L. A review of wetland remote sensing. Sensors 2017, 17, 777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.; Peng, J.; Chen, N.; Sun, W.; Du, Q.; Ren, K.; Huang, K. Cross-scene wetland mapping on hyperspectral remote sensing images using adversarial domain adaptation network. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2023, 203, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Betbeder, J.; Gond, V.; Frappart, F.; Baghdadi, N.N.; Briant, G.; Bartholomé, E. Mapping of Central Africa forested wetlands using remote sensing. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2013, 7, 531–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuleli, T.; Guneroglu, A.; Karsli, F.; Dihkan, M. Automatic detection of shoreline change on coastal Ramsar wetlands of Turkey. Ocean Eng. 2011, 38, 1141–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Ma, M. Impacts of Climate Change and Anthropogenic Activities on the Ecological Restoration of Wetlands in the Arid Regions of China. Energies 2016, 9, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.; Ren, C.; Zhang, B.; Li, L.; Wang, Z.; Song, K. Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Coastal Wetlands and Reclamation in the Yangtze Estuary During Past 50 Years (1960s–2015). Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2018, 28, 386–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Zhang, S.; Wang, G.; Liu, Y.; Wang, H.; Gu, J. Reservoir Regulation for Ecological Protection and Remediation: A Case Study of the Irtysh River Basin, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hanchu, L.; Jie, F.; Baoyin, L.; Li, W.; Qin, Q. Practical Exploration of Ecological Restoration and Management of the Mountains-Rivers-Forests-Farmlands-Lakes-Grasslands System in the Irtysh River Basin in Altay, Xinjiang. J. Resour. Ecol. 2021, 12, 766–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, F.; Xia, Z.; Li, F.; Guo, L.; Yang, F. Hydrological Changes of the Irtysh River and the Possible Causes. Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 26, 3195–3208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kingsford, R.T.; Basset, A.; Jackson, L. Wetlands: Conservation’s poor cousins. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2016, 26, 892–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, J.; Abudumanan, A.; Wang, L.; Zhou, D.; Wang, Z.; Liu, H. Dynamic Assessment and Sustainability Strategies of Ecological Security in the Irtysh River Basin of Xinjiang, China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2023, 33, 393–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehner, B.; Döll, P. Development and validation of a global database of lakes, reservoirs and wetlands. J. Hydrol. 2004, 296, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gumbricht, T.; Roman-Cuesta, R.M.; Verchot, L.; Herold, M.; Wittmann, F.; Householder, E.; Herold, N.; Murdiyarso, D. An expert system model for mapping tropical wetlands and peatlands reveals South America as the largest contributor. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 3581–3599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, G.; Jin, R.; Ye, Z.; Li, Q.; Gu, J.; Luo, M.; Luo, Y.; Christakos, G.; Morris, J.; He, J.; et al. Spatiotemporal Mapping of Salt Marshes in the Intertidal Zone of China during 1985–2019. J. Remote Sens. 2022, 2022, 9793626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radelyuk, I.; Zhang, L.; Assanov, D.; Maratova, G.; Tussupova, K. A state-of-the-art and future perspectives of transboundary rivers in the cold climate–a systematic review of Irtysh River. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2022, 42, 101173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, S.; Yuan, Y.; Chen, F.; Shang, H.; Zhang, T.; Yu, S.; Qin, L.; Zhang, R. A 291 year precipitation reconstruction in the upper Irtysh River basin based on tree-ring width. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2016, 36, 2866–2875. [Google Scholar]
- Hrkal, Z.; Gadalia, A.; Rigaudiere, P. Will the river Irtysh survive the year 2030? Impact of long-term unsuitable land use and water management of the upper stretch of the river catchment (North Kazakhstan). Environ. Geol. 2006, 50, 717–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jun, C.; Ban, Y.; Li, S. Open access to Earth land-cover map. Nature 2014, 514, 434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Buchhorn, M.; Smets, B.; Bertels, L.; De Roo, B.; Lesiv, M.; Tsendbazar, N.-E.; Herold, M.; Fritz, S. Copernicus Global Land Service: Land Cover 100m: Collection 3: Epoch 2019: Globe. Version V3.0.1; Laboratory of Geo-information Science and Remote Sensing: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Karra, K.; Kontgis, C.; Statman-Weil, Z.; Mazzariello, J.C.; Mathis, M.; Brumby, S.P. Global land use/land cover with Sentinel 2 and deep learning. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS, Brussels, Belgium, 11–16 July 2021; pp. 4704–4707. [Google Scholar]
- Zanaga, D.; Van De Kerchove, R.; Daems, D.; De Keersmaecker, W.; Brockmann, C.; Kirches, G.; Wevers, J.; Cartus, O.; Santoro, M.; Fritz, S. ESA WorldCover 10 m 2021 v200. Zenodo 2022. Available online: https://zenodo.org/records/7254221 (accessed on 10 July 2023).
- Zhang, X.; Liu, L.; Zhao, T.; Chen, X.; Lin, S.; Wang, J.; Mi, J.; Liu, W. GWL_FCS30: A global 30 m wetland map with a fine classification system using multi-sourced and time-series remote sensing imagery in 2020. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2023, 15, 265–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, P.; Liu, H.; Zhang, M.; Li, C.; Wang, J.; Huang, H.; Clinton, N.; Ji, L.; Li, W.; Bai, Y.; et al. Stable classification with limited sample: Transferring a 30-m resolution sample set collected in 2015 to mapping 10-m resolution global land cover in 2017. Sci. Bull. 2019, 64, 370–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, X.; Liu, L.; Chen, X.; Gao, Y.; Xie, S.; Mi, J. GLC_FCS30: Global land-cover product with fine classification system at 30 m using time-series Landsat imagery. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2021, 13, 2753–2776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harper, K.L.; Lamarche, C.; Hartley, A.; Peylin, P.; Ottlé, C.; Bastrikov, V.; San Martín, R.; Bohnenstengel, S.I.; Kirches, G.; Boettcher, M. A 29-year time series of annual 300-metre resolution plant functional type maps for climate models. Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. 2022, 2022, 1–37. [Google Scholar]
- Friedl, M.; Sulla-Menashe, D. MCD12Q1 MODIS/Terra+ aqua land cover type yearly L3 global 500m SIN grid V006. NASA EOSDIS Land Process. DAAC 2019, 10, 200. [Google Scholar]
- Roy, P.; Agrawal, S.; Joshi, P.; Shukla, Y. The Land Cover Map for Southern Asia for the Year 2000. GLC2000 Database; European Commission Joint Research Centre: Brussels, Belgium, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, X.; Li, B.; Liu, X.; Li, X.; Shi, Q. Mapping annual global land cover changes at a 30 m resolution from 2000 to 2015. Natl. Remote Sens. Bull. 2021, 25, 1896–1916. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, D.; Weng, Q.; Moran, E.; Li, G.; Hetrick, S. Remote sensing image classification. Adv. Environ. Remote Sens. Sens. Algorithms Appl. 2011, 9, 219–240. [Google Scholar]
- Real, R.; Vargas, J.M. The probabilistic basis of Jaccard’s index of similarity. Syst. Biol. 1996, 45, 380–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Congalton, R.G. A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. Remote Sens. Environ. 1991, 37, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, J. Thematic information extraction: Image classification. In Introductory Digital Image Processing: A Remote Sensing Perspective; Pearson Education: London, UK, 1996; pp. 197–256. [Google Scholar]
- Herold, M.; Mayaux, P.; Woodcock, C.; Baccini, A.; Schmullius, C. Some challenges in global land cover mapping: An assessment of agreement and accuracy in existing 1 km datasets. Remote Sens. Environ. 2008, 112, 2538–2556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maxwell, A.E.; Warner, T.A.; Fang, F. Implementation of machine-learning classification in remote sensing: An applied review. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2018, 39, 2784–2817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Acronyms | Definition |
---|---|
RS | Remote sensing |
LULC | Land use/land cover |
ISAI | Institute of Space and Astronautical Information Innovation |
CAS | Chinese Academy of Sciences |
GWL_FCS30 | Global 30 m Wetland Fine Classification Data released by the ISAI of the CAS |
GLC_FCS30-2020 | Global 30 m Land Cover Data released by the ISAI of the CAS |
ESRI_Global-LULC_10m | Esri Global 10 m Land Cover Data |
FROM_GLC10_2017 | The global 10 m land cover data from Tsinghua University |
LCCS | Land Cover Classification System |
UN-FAO | United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization |
ESA | European Space Agency |
JRC | European Union Joint Research Centre |
OA | Overall Accuracy |
EA | Expected Accuracy |
GEE | Google Earth Engine |
Data Name | Primary Data Sources | Research and Development Organisations | Spatial Resolution/m | Vintages | Number of Classifications/pc | Data Sources |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GlobeLand30 V2020 | Landsat TM5/ETM+/OLI, HJ-1, GF-1 | China National Centre for Basic Geographic Information | 30 | 2020 | 10 | http://www.globallandcover.com/ (accessed on 9 July 2023) |
CGLS-LC100 | External datasets such as PROBA-V, GeoWIKI, etc. | Copernicus Land Monitoring Service Global Team | 100 | 2019 | 23 | https://land.copernicus.eu/global/products/lc (accessed on 10 July 2023) |
ESRI_Global-LULC_10m | Deep Learning Models and Training Datasets for ESA Sentinel-2, Impact Observatory | ESRI Corporation | 10 | 2020 | 10 | https://esri.maps.arcgis.com/ (accessed on 18 July 2023) |
ESA WorldCover 10m v100 | Sentinel-1/2 data, GeoWIKI samples | European Space Agency (ESA) | 10 | 2020 | 11 | https://viewer.esa-worldcover.org/worldcover/ (accessed on 10 July 2023) |
GWL_FCS30 | Landsat TM5/ETM+/OLI, Sentinel-1 SAR, ASTER GDEM | Institute of Space and Astronautical Information Innovation, Chinese Academy of Sciences | 30 | 2020 | 9 | https://zenodo.org/record/7340516 (accessed on 17 July 2023) |
FROM_GLC10_2017 | 2015 30 m Landsat-8 data | Gong Peng Team, Tsinghua University | 10 | 2017 | 10 | http://data.starcloud.pcl.ac.cn/ (accessed on 16 August 2023) |
GLC_FCS30-2020 | Landsat time series imagery, CCI-LC products, MODIS NBAR data, 2014–2016 | Institute of Space and Astronautical Information Innovation, Chinese Academy of Sciences | 30 | 2020 | 30 | https://data.casearth.cn/thematic/glc_fcs30 (accessed on 11 August 2023) |
ESA CCI-LC | SPOT-VEGETATION images | European Space Agency (ESA) | 300 | 2020 | 22 | http://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI (accessed on 21 August 2023) |
MCD12Q1 v061 | MODIS data and other ground-based observations | NASA | 500 | 2021 | 17 | https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/mcd12q1v061/ (accessed on 17 August 2023) |
GLC2000 | SPOT-4 VEGETATION image | European Union Joint Research Centre (JRC) | 1000 | 2000 | 28 | https://forobs.jrc.ec.europa.eu/glc2000 (accessed on 21 August 2023) |
AGLC-2015 | Globeland30, FROM-GLC, and GLC-FCS30 products | Sun Yat-sen University | 30 | 2015 | 10 | https://doi.org/10.11834/jrs.20211261 (accessed on 18 August 2023) |
Remote Sensing Product | Wetland Category | Wetland Area (km2) | Percentage of Wetland Area (%) |
---|---|---|---|
GlobeLand30 V2020 | Wetlands | 139,809.699 | 7.756 |
CGLS-LC100 | Wetlands | 224,334.400 | 9.305 |
ESRI_Global-LULC_10m | Wetlands | 81,814.511 | 2.783 |
ESA WorldCover 10 m v100 | Wetlands | 197,501.892 | 6.717 |
GWL_FCS30 | Inland swamp, inland marsh, flooded flat | 230,053.628 | 10.353 |
FROM_GLC10_2017 | Wetlands | 31,980.692 | 3.996 |
GLC_FCS30-2020 | Wetlands | 242,745.659 | 8.256 |
ESA CCI-LC | Flooded tree canopy, flooded shrub | 164,252.070 | 5.935 |
MCD12Q1 v061 | Permanent wetlands | 43,993.000 | 2.207 |
GLC2000 | Palsa bogs, salt-marsh | 122,859.000 | 4.128 |
AGLC-2015 | Wetland | 64,281.615 | 2.186 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Luo, K.; Samat, A.; Abuduwaili, J.; Li, W. Evaluation of Remote Sensing Products for Wetland Mapping in the Irtysh River Basin. Geosciences 2024, 14, 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences14010014
Luo K, Samat A, Abuduwaili J, Li W. Evaluation of Remote Sensing Products for Wetland Mapping in the Irtysh River Basin. Geosciences. 2024; 14(1):14. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences14010014
Chicago/Turabian StyleLuo, Kaiyue, Alim Samat, Jilili Abuduwaili, and Wenbo Li. 2024. "Evaluation of Remote Sensing Products for Wetland Mapping in the Irtysh River Basin" Geosciences 14, no. 1: 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences14010014