Monitoring the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Invasive Pedicularis kansuensis in Bayinbuluke Alpine Wetlands: A Novel Spectral Index Framework Using PlanetScope Time Series (2021–2025)
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Results
2.1. The Performance of PKI
2.1.1. Comparative Spatial Performance of PKI and Benchmark Indices
2.1.2. Sample-Level Separability of PKI Versus Benchmark Indices
2.1.3. Quantitative Separability Using the M-Statistic
2.2. Accuracy Assessment and Analysis
2.2.1. Performance of P. kansuensis Classification Using PKI Versus Benchmark Indices
2.2.2. Threshold Stability and the Contribution of GrMO Refinement
2.3. Spatiotemporal Invasion Dynamics of P. kansuensis in the Bayinbuluke Alpine Wetland (2021–2025)
2.3.1. Interannual Variability in Invaded Area
2.3.2. The Spatiotemporal Distribution and Invasion Hotspots
2.3.3. Interannual Spatial Dynamics of Expansion and Contraction
2.3.4. Implications for Monitoring and Management of Invasive Plants in Alpine Wetlands
3. Discussion
3.1. Advantages of PKI
3.2. Limitations of PKI
3.3. Invasive Habits and Recurrence Characteristics of P. kansuensis
3.4. Local Management and Control of P. kansuensis in Bayinbuluke
4. Materials
4.1. Study Area
4.2. Pedicularis kansuensis
4.3. PlanetScope Imagery
4.4. Field Surveys and Validation Dataset
4.4.1. Field Surveys and Ground Truth Acquisition
4.4.2. Construction of Multi-Year P. kansuensis Validation Dataset
5. Methodology
5.1. Spectral Characteristics Analysis
5.2. Calculation of the Pedicularis kansuensis Index (PKI)
5.2.1. Formulation of PKI
5.2.2. Spatial Optimization via Grayscale Morphological Opening
5.3. Threshold Determination and False Positive Suppression
5.4. Comparative Analysis
5.4.1. Backbone Indices
5.4.2. Accuracy Metrics
5.4.3. M-Statistic
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wang, Y.; Wang, H.; He, J.-S.; Feng, X. Iron-mediated soil carbon response to water-table decline in an alpine wetland. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, D.-W.; Liu, Y.; Xie, D.-J.; Mu, C.-L.; Sun, Z.-Y.; Zhou, M.-J.; Rao, J.-P.; Suolang, D.; Xiong, Y.-Q.; Chen, J.-S. Effects of driving factors on water supply function under different basins and spatial scale in Zoige alpine wetland, China. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 158, 111403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, M.; Xin, C.; Ma, M. Change in grass hill size can signal species diversity changes and ecosystem state transitions during alpine wetland degradation. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 132, 108302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mętrak, M.; Chachulski, Ł.; Pawlikowski, P.; Rojan, E.; Sulwiński, M.; Suska-Malawska, M. Potential role of high-altitude wetlands in preservation of plant biodiversity under changing climatic conditions in the arid Eastern Pamir. Catena 2023, 220, 106704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, G.; Kang, X.; Wang, F.; Zhuang, W.; Yan, W.; Zhang, K. Alpine wetlands degradation leads to soil nutrient imbalances that affect plant growth and microbial diversity. Commun. Earth Environ. 2024, 5, 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.; Li, X.-l.; Cheung, A.; Yang, Y.-w. Degradation of wetlands on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau: A comparison of the effectiveness of three indicators. J. Mt. Sci. 2013, 10, 658–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, W.; Lv, J.; Wang, C.; Chen, Z.; Liu, Y. Marsh wetland degradation risk assessment and change analysis: A case study in the Zoige Plateau, China. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 82, 316–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, R.; Wang, J.; Li, L.; Zhang, L.; Lu, H.; Jiang, X.; Chen, X.; Han, Z.; Dang-zhi, C.; Wang, H. Evaluation of alpine wetland ecological degradation based on alpine wetland degradation index: A case study in the first meander of the Yellow River. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 158, 111414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zedler, J.B.; Kercher, S. Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: Opportunities, opportunists, and outcomes. critical Rev. Plant Sci. 2004, 23, 431–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, E.; Samat, A.; Li, E.; Xu, R.; Li, W.; Li, W. Adversarial Positive-Unlabeled Learning-Based Invasive Plant Detection in Alpine Wetland Using Jilin-1 and Sentinel-2 Imageries. Remote Sens. 2025, 17, 1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, S.; Dong, S.; Wang, Z.; Li, S.; Ma, C.; Li, Z. Response of species dominance and niche of plant community to wetland degradation along alpine lake riparian. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1352834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- POWO. Plants of the World Online. 2026. Available online: https://powo.science.kew.org/ (accessed on 22 February 2026).
- Wang, D.; Cui, B.; Duan, S.; Chen, J.; Fan, H.; Lu, B.; Zheng, J. Moving north in China: The habitat of Pedicularis kansuensis in the context of climate change. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 697, 133979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xiang, L.; Li, Y.; Sui, X.; Li, A. Fast and abundant in vitro spontaneous haustorium formation in root hemiparasitic plant Pedicularis kansuensis Maxim. (Orobanchaceae). Plant Divers. 2018, 40, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, L.; Yang, L.; Li, W.; Zhang, L.; Li, W. Effect of Pedicularis kansuensis invasion on plant community characteristics in Bayanbulak grassland. Pratacultural Science. Pratacultural Sci. 2024, 41, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Sui, X.; Kuss, P.; Li, W.; Yang, M.; Guan, K.; Li, A. Identity and distribution of weedy Pedicularis kansuensis Maxim. (Orobanchaceae) in Tianshan Mountains of Xinjiang: Morphological, anatomical and molecular evidence. J. Arid Land 2016, 8, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, I.; Cawkwell, F.; Dwyer, E.; Barrett, B.; Green, S. Satellite remote sensing of grasslands: From observation to management. J. Plant Ecol. 2016, 9, 649–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Tang, J.; Zhang, N.; Wang, Y.; Xu, X.; Zhang, A. Spatiotemporal Pattern of Invasive Pedicularis in the Bayinbuluke Land, China, during 2019–2021: An Analysis Based on PlanetScope and Sentinel-2 Data. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Royimani, L.; Mutanga, O.; Odindi, J.; Dube, T.; Matongera, T.N. Advancements in satellite remote sensing for mapping and monitoring of alien invasive plant species (AIPs). Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2019, 112, 237–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, J.; Li, K.; Zhang, J.; Liu, Y.; Li, X. Mapping Invasive Species Pedicularis and Background Grassland Using UAV and Machine Learning Algorithms. Drones 2024, 8, 639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Tang, J.; Zhang, N.; Xu, X.; Zhang, A.; Wang, Y. Automated detection method to extract Pedicularis based on UAV images. Drones 2022, 6, 399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christin, S.; Hervet, É.; Lecomte, N. Applications for deep learning in ecology. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2019, 10, 1632–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X.X.; Tuia, D.; Mou, L.; Xia, G.-S.; Zhang, L.; Xu, F.; Fraundorfer, F. Deep learning in remote sensing: A comprehensive review and list of resources. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Mag. 2017, 5, 8–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiss, M.; Jacob, F.; Duveiller, G. Remote sensing for agricultural applications: A meta-review. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 236, 111402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, Y.; Hao, D.; Huete, A.; Dechant, B.; Berry, J.; Chen, J.M.; Joiner, J.; Frankenberg, C.; Bond-Lamberty, B.; Ryu, Y. Optical vegetation indices for monitoring terrestrial ecosystems globally. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2022, 3, 477–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, M.O.; Jones, L.A.; Kimball, J.S.; McDonald, K.C. Satellite passive microwave remote sensing for monitoring global land surface phenology. Remote Sens. Environ. 2011, 115, 1102–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradley, B.A. Remote detection of invasive plants: A review of spectral, textural and phenological approaches. Biol. Invasions 2014, 16, 1411–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuo, Y.; Yang, G.; Sun, W.; Huang, K.; Yang, S.; Chen, B.; Wang, L.; Meng, X.; Wang, Y.; Li, J. SAI: A Spartina alterniflora Index Based on Sentinel-2 Multispectral Imagery for Spartina alterniflora Mapping. J. Remote Sens. 2025, 5, 0510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hersbach, H.; Bell, B.; Berrisford, P.; Hirahara, S.; Horányi, A.; Muñoz-Sabater, J.; Nicolas, J.; Peubey, C.; Radu, R.; Schepers, D. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2020, 146, 1999–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qian, W.; Huang, Y.; Liu, Q.; Fan, W.; Sun, Z.; Dong, H.; Wan, F.; Qiao, X. UAV and a deep convolutional neural network for monitoring invasive alien plants in the wild. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 174, 105519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, Z.; Lin, L.; Post, C.J.; Mikhailova, E.A. Monitoring the spatial–temporal distribution of invasive plant in urban water using deep learning and remote sensing technology. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 162, 112061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- da Silva, S.D.P.; Eugenio, F.C.; Fantinel, R.A.; de Paula Amaral, L.; dos Santos, A.R.; Mallmann, C.L.; dos Santos, F.D.; Pereira, R.S.; Ruoso, R. Modeling and detection of invasive trees using UAV image and machine learning in a subtropical forest in Brazil. Ecol. Inform. 2023, 74, 101989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sui, X.; Li, A.; Guan, K. Impacts of climatic changes as well as seed germination characteristics on the population expansion of Pedicularis verticillata. Ecol. Environ. Sci 2013, 22, 1099–1104. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, P.; Han, D.; Liu, S.; Wen, X.; Huang, Y.; Jia, H. Soil quality assessment under different land uses in an alpine grassland. Catena 2018, 171, 280–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B.; Yao, Y.; Cheng, W.; Zhou, C.; Lu, Z.; Chen, X.; Alshir, K.; ErDowlet, I.; Zhang, L.; Shi, Q. Human-induced changes to biodiversity and alpine pastureland in the bayanbulak region of the east tienshan mountains. Mt. Res. Dev. 2002, 22, 383–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Zhang, D.; Sun, Y.; Lu, T.; Shi, W. Development of SSR markers and evaluation of genetic diversity of endangered plant Saussurea involucrata. Biomolecules 2024, 14, 1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.-J.; Sui, X.-L.; Kuss, P.; Liu, Y.-Y.; Li, A.-R.; Guan, K.-Y. Long-distance dispersal after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) led to the disjunctive distribution of Pedicularis kansuensis (Orobanchaceae) between the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau and Tianshan region. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0165700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roy, D.P.; Huang, H.; Houborg, R.; Martins, V.S. A global analysis of the temporal availability of PlanetScope high spatial resolution multi-spectral imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 2021, 264, 112586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chasles, R.G.; Maciel, D.A.; Barbosa, C.C.; Novo, E.M.; Martins, V.S.; Paulino, R.; Wanderley, R.; Júnior, R.F.; Lima, T.M.; Bacellar, P. Accuracy assessment of PlanetScope SuperDove products for aquatic reflectance retrieval over Brazilian inland and coastal waters. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2025, 227, 678–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, B.; Wu, N.; Issanova, G.; Ge, Y.; Chen, J.; Adili, A.; Abuduwaili, J.; Juliev, M. Insights into the impact of light-absorbing impurities on radiative forcing and snowmelt in the Ili Basin in Central Asia. Environ. Res. 2025, 279, 121768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vincent, L. Grayscale area openings and closings, their efficient implementation and applications. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Mathematical Morphology and Its Applications to Signal Processing, Barcelona, Spain, 12–14 May 1993; pp. 22–27. [Google Scholar]
- Gamon, J.A.; Surfus, J.S. Assessing leaf pigment content and activity with a reflectometer. New Phytol. 1999, 143, 105–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tucker, C.J. Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring vegetation. Remote Sens. Environ. 1979, 8, 127–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gitelson, A.A.; Kaufman, Y.J.; Merzlyak, M.N. Use of a green channel in remote sensing of global vegetation from EOS-MODIS. Remote Sens. Environ. 1996, 58, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnes, E.; Clarke, T.; Richards, S.; Colaizzi, P.; Haberland, J.; Kostrzewski, M.; Waller, P.; Choi, C.; Riley, E.; Thompson, T. Coincident detection of crop water stress, nitrogen status and canopy density using ground based multispectral data. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Precision Agriculture, Bloomington, MN, USA, 16–19 July 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Gitelson, A.A.; Gritz, Y.; Merzlyak, M.N. Relationships between leaf chlorophyll content and spectral reflectance and algorithms for non-destructive chlorophyll assessment in higher plant leaves. J. Plant Physiol. 2003, 160, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gitelson, A.A.; Viña, A.; Ciganda, V.; Rundquist, D.C.; Arkebauer, T.J. Remote estimation of canopy chlorophyll content in crops. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2005, 32, L08403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gitelson, A.A.; Merzlyak, M.N.; Chivkunova, O.B. Optical properties and nondestructive estimation of anthocyanin content in plant leaves. Photochem. Photobiol. 2001, 74, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lever, J. Classification evaluation: It is important to understand both what a classification metric expresses and what it hides. Nat. Methods 2016, 13, 603–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaufman, Y.J.; Remer, L.A. Detection of forests using mid-IR reflectance: An application for aerosol studies. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2002, 32, 672–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]














| Year | Metric | PKI | PKI(raw) | RI | NDVI | NDRE | GNDVI | CIRE | CIG | ARI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Accuracy | 87.82% | 77.99% | 67.21% | 65.11% | 62.53% | 66.28% | 67.92% | 65.81% | 66.04% |
| 2021 | F1-Score | 87.06% | 74.03% | 75.69% | 74.79% | 73.33% | 75.26% | 76.01% | 73.93% | 72.80% |
| 2021 | Kappa | 75.77% | 56.49% | 32.86% | 28.37% | 22.96% | 30.88% | 34.36% | 30.17% | 30.97% |
| 2021 | Precision | 96.69% | 95.04% | 61.41% | 59.73% | 58.05% | 60.66% | 62.00% | 61.06% | 62.18% |
| 2021 | Recall | 79.19% | 60.63% | 98.64% | 100.00% | 99.55% | 99.10% | 98.19% | 93.67% | 87.78% |
| 2021 | Lower_Limit | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.7800 | 0.4657 | 0.2880 | 0.5562 | 0.8088 | 2.5063 | 9.9972 |
| 2021 | Upper_Limit | inf | inf | 1.4932 | 0.8711 | 0.6138 | 0.8596 | 2.6572 | 7.9741 | 17.9092 |
| 2022 | Accuracy | 95.63% | 94.44% | 72.22% | 74.60% | 67.86% | 69.84% | 67.86% | 69.84% | 69.84% |
| 2022 | F1-Score | 94.69% | 93.20% | 73.68% | 75.38% | 70.76% | 72.06% | 70.76% | 72.06% | 72.06% |
| 2022 | Kappa | 91.00% | 88.52% | 48.28% | 52.24% | 41.21% | 44.39% | 41.21% | 44.39% | 44.39% |
| 2022 | Precision | 89.91% | 88.89% | 58.33% | 60.49% | 54.75% | 56.32% | 54.75% | 56.32% | 56.32% |
| 2022 | Recall | 100.00% | 97.96% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| 2022 | Lower_Limit | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.9882 | 0.5610 | 0.3551 | 0.6489 | 1.1015 | 3.6959 | 12.6576 |
| 2022 | Upper_Limit | inf | inf | 1.6490 | 0.8011 | 0.5624 | 0.8336 | 2.5702 | 10.0183 | 24.1921 |
| 2023 | Accuracy | 98.80% | 98.39% | 65.46% | 77.91% | 75.90% | 78.71% | 77.51% | 78.71% | 82.73% |
| 2023 | F1-Score | 98.80% | 98.41% | 74.25% | 81.61% | 79.59% | 81.40% | 80.00% | 81.00% | 84.91% |
| 2023 | Kappa | 97.59% | 96.79% | 31.11% | 55.90% | 51.88% | 57.48% | 55.07% | 57.47% | 65.50% |
| 2023 | Precision | 97.64% | 96.88% | 59.05% | 69.71% | 68.82% | 72.05% | 71.79% | 72.90% | 75.16% |
| 2023 | Recall | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 98.39% | 94.35% | 93.55% | 90.32% | 91.13% | 97.58% |
| 2023 | Lower_Limit | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.9492 | 0.5116 | 0.3205 | 0.6505 | 0.9435 | 3.7218 | 11.2442 |
| 2023 | Upper_Limit | inf | inf | 1.9502 | 0.7760 | 0.5171 | 0.7920 | 1.9140 | 6.9776 | 20.8759 |
| 2024 | Accuracy | 96.27% | 96.52% | 58.21% | 72.89% | 70.40% | 75.37% | 70.15% | 72.89% | 72.64% |
| 2024 | F1-Score | 96.33% | 96.59% | 70.53% | 79.32% | 77.84% | 80.78% | 77.36% | 79.16% | 78.93% |
| 2024 | Kappa | 92.54% | 93.03% | 13.68% | 44.48% | 39.27% | 49.70% | 38.85% | 44.53% | 44.03% |
| 2024 | Precision | 98.50% | 98.51% | 55.68% | 65.72% | 63.72% | 67.97% | 63.86% | 65.92% | 65.81% |
| 2024 | Recall | 94.26% | 94.74% | 96.17% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 99.52% | 98.09% | 99.04% | 98.56% |
| 2024 | Lower_Limit | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.7963 | 0.4759 | 0.2818 | 0.6031 | 0.7848 | 2.3443 | 7.9657 |
| 2024 | Upper_Limit | inf | inf | 1.4292 | 0.8738 | 0.6157 | 0.8635 | 2.9182 | 11.1221 | 23.8457 |
| 2025 | Accuracy | 92.05% | 94.60% | 63.92% | 79.83% | 77.84% | 78.98% | 78.41% | 82.67% | 86.65% |
| 2025 | F1-Score | 92.05% | 94.59% | 73.60% | 83.14% | 81.34% | 82.21% | 81.46% | 84.56% | 87.98% |
| 2025 | Kappa | 84.09% | 89.21% | 27.54% | 59.57% | 55.59% | 57.87% | 56.74% | 65.29% | 73.26% |
| 2025 | Precision | 92.57% | 95.40% | 58.22% | 71.72% | 70.54% | 71.55% | 71.67% | 76.61% | 80.37% |
| 2025 | Recall | 91.53% | 93.79% | 100.00% | 98.87% | 96.05% | 96.61% | 94.35% | 94.35% | 97.18% |
| 2025 | Lower_Limit | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.7033 | 0.6011 | 0.3695 | 0.6644 | 1.1719 | 3.7324 | 13.1888 |
| 2025 | Upper_Limit | inf | inf | 1.4442 | 0.8612 | 0.5557 | 0.8205 | 2.3409 | 7.6972 | 21.7602 |
| All Years | Accuracy | 93.52% | 91.38% | 57.31% | 66.94% | 65.46% | 68.79% | 68.43% | 65.52% | 67.30% |
| All Years | F1-Score | 93.28% | 90.83% | 69.24% | 74.89% | 74.05% | 75.91% | 75.45% | 73.32% | 74.79% |
| All Years | Kappa | 87.03% | 82.73% | 15.58% | 34.49% | 31.58% | 38.11% | 37.38% | 31.62% | 35.16% |
| All Years | Precision | 95.45% | 95.48% | 53.69% | 59.86% | 58.79% | 61.26% | 61.17% | 59.26% | 60.31% |
| All Years | Recall | 91.19% | 86.61% | 97.47% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 99.76% | 98.43% | 96.14% | 98.43% |
| All Years | Lower_Limit | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.7136 | 0.4657 | 0.2818 | 0.5833 | 0.7848 | 2.3443 | 7.9657 |
| All Years | Upper_Limit | inf | inf | 1.6456 | 0.8975 | 0.6288 | 0.8672 | 2.8116 | 9.4619 | 24.3724 |
| Year | Metric | PKI | PKI(raw) | RI | NDVI | NDRE | GNDVI | CIRE | CIG | ARI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Accuracy | [84.3%, 90.9%] | [73.8%, 82.0%] | [61.6%, 73.3%] | [61.7%, 74.2%] | [59.6%, 73.7%] | [62.1%, 73.1%] | [64.6%, 75.3%] | [60.9%, 73.8%] | [61.6%, 74.5%] |
| 2021 | F1-Score | [83.3%, 90.3%] | [68.6%, 79.0%] | [71.4%, 80.0%] | [71.6%, 80.9%] | [70.6%, 80.1%] | [71.8%, 80.0%] | [72.9%, 81.3%] | [69.9%, 79.0%] | [69.2%, 79.0%] |
| 2021 | Kappa | [69.1%, 81.6%] | [48.6%, 64.4%] | [23.1%, 44.7%] | [23.4%, 47.5%] | [19.1%, 45.0%] | [24.2%, 44.2%] | [29.0%, 48.8%] | [22.4%, 45.5%] | [24.4%, 48.1%] |
| 2021 | Precision | [93.8%, 99.0%] | [91.2%, 98.2%] | [55.8%, 67.6%] | [55.8%, 68.1%] | [54.6%, 67.0%] | [56.4%, 67.3%] | [58.2%, 69.8%] | [55.8%, 69.1%] | [57.1%, 71.1%] |
| 2021 | Recall | [73.5%, 84.3%] | [54.0%, 67.3%] | [95.6%, 100%] | [98.7%, 100%] | [97.8%, 100%] | [94.3%, 100%] | [94.5%, 99.8%] | [89.5%, 96.3%] | [83.7%, 93.3%] |
| 2021 | Lower_Limit | [1.00, 1.00] | [1.00, 1.00] | [0.75, 0.87] | [0.47, 0.53] | [0.29, 0.33] | [0.56, 0.60] | [0.81, 0.96] | [2.51, 3.00] | [10.00, 11.80] |
| 2021 | Upper_Limit | [1.00, Inf] | [1.00, Inf] | [1.39, 1.49] | [0.83, 0.87] | [0.56, 0.63] | [0.80, 0.87] | [2.32, 2.76] | [6.70, 8.99] | [16.71, 20.17] |
| 2022 | Accuracy | [92.5%, 98.0%] | [91.3%, 97.2%] | [67.9%, 80.6%] | [69.4%, 80.0%] | [63.1%, 75.0%] | [64.9%, 77.8%] | [63.1%, 75.0%] | [64.7%, 76.0%] | [63.9%, 77.4%] |
| 2022 | F1-Score | [91.2%, 97.6%] | [88.9%, 96.6%] | [68.9%, 81.2%] | [69.5%, 81.0%] | [65.2%, 77.2%] | [66.8%, 78.5%] | [65.2%, 77.2%] | [66.4%, 78.1%] | [65.7%, 78.7%] |
| 2022 | Kappa | [84.6%, 95.9%] | [82.2%, 94.2%] | [41.6%, 62.5%] | [44.0%, 61.4%] | [33.7%, 52.5%] | [36.9%, 57.4%] | [33.7%, 52.5%] | [36.7%, 54.4%] | [35.4%, 56.9%] |
| 2022 | Precision | [83.8%, 95.4%] | [82.4%, 94.8%] | [52.5%, 68.3%] | [53.3%, 68.1%] | [48.4%, 62.9%] | [50.1%, 65.6%] | [48.4%, 62.9%] | [49.8%, 64.2%] | [48.9%, 65.3%] |
| 2022 | Recall | [100%, 100%] | [94.9%, 100%] | [100%, 100%] | [100%, 100%] | [100%, 100%] | [96.1%, 100%] | [100%, 100%] | [96.3%, 100%] | [91.3%, 100%] |
| 2022 | Lower_Limit | [1.00, 1.00] | [1.00, 1.00] | [0.99, 1.06] | [0.56, 0.59] | [0.36, 0.38] | [0.65, 0.69] | [1.10, 1.25] | [3.70, 4.05] | [12.66, 14.04] |
| 2022 | Upper_Limit | [1.00, Inf] | [1.00, Inf] | [1.53, 1.65] | [0.79, 0.80] | [0.56, 0.56] | [0.83, 0.83] | [2.52, 2.57] | [9.47, 10.02] | [22.95, 24.19] |
| 2023 | Accuracy | [97.2%, 100%] | [96.8%, 99.6%] | [61.0%, 81.9%] | [72.7%, 83.1%] | [72.3%, 84.7%] | [74.7%, 85.1%] | [72.5%, 84.7%] | [73.9%, 84.3%] | [79.5%, 92.8%] |
| 2023 | F1-Score | [97.2%, 100%] | [96.8%, 99.6%] | [69.8%, 84.6%] | [76.9%, 86.2%] | [76.0%, 85.5%] | [77.5%, 87.0%] | [75.6%, 85.1%] | [76.2%, 86.0%] | [81.4%, 93.3%] |
| 2023 | Kappa | [94.4%, 100%] | [93.6%, 99.2%] | [23.9%, 64.4%] | [46.2%, 65.7%] | [45.0%, 69.5%] | [49.8%, 70.1%] | [45.1%, 69.5%] | [47.6%, 68.1%] | [58.9%, 85.5%] |
| 2023 | Precision | [94.5%, 100%] | [93.7%, 99.3%] | [53.7%, 73.9%] | [63.3%, 77.5%] | [63.4%, 85.7%] | [67.3%, 79.7%] | [63.7%, 86.3%] | [67.3%, 80.3%] | [69.6%, 89.1%] |
| 2023 | Recall | [100%, 100%] | [100%, 100%] | [96.7%, 100%] | [91.9%, 100%] | [81.4%, 100%] | [88.0%, 100%] | [80.2%, 100%] | [84.9%, 95.7%] | [94.1%, 100%] |
| 2023 | Lower_Limit | [1.00, 1.00] | [1.00, 1.00] | [0.95, 1.11] | [0.51, 0.53] | [0.32, 0.33] | [0.65, 0.66] | [0.94, 0.96] | [3.72, 3.91] | [11.24, 13.03] |
| 2023 | Upper_Limit | [1.00, Inf] | [1.00, Inf] | [1.74, 1.95] | [0.74, 0.80] | [0.42, 0.55] | [0.76, 0.82] | [1.42, 2.49] | [5.99, 8.21] | [18.88, 21.12] |
| 2024 | Accuracy | [94.3%, 98.0%] | [94.8%, 98.0%] | [53.0%, 64.7%] | [69.0%, 78.0%] | [66.4%, 75.6%] | [71.1%, 79.4%] | [65.7%, 75.4%] | [68.9%, 78.6%] | [68.9%, 80.1%] |
| 2024 | F1-Score | [94.1%, 98.0%] | [94.6%, 98.2%] | [66.0%, 75.6%] | [75.7%, 83.5%] | [74.1%, 82.0%] | [76.9%, 84.4%] | [73.6%, 82.0%] | [75.7%, 83.5%] | [75.6%, 84.3%] |
| 2024 | Kappa | [88.6%, 96.0%] | [89.4%, 96.0%] | [7.3%, 24.3%] | [38.2%, 53.7%] | [32.7%, 48.0%] | [42.2%, 56.7%] | [31.3%, 47.3%] | [37.3%, 55.1%] | [37.8%, 58.8%] |
| 2024 | Precision | [96.5%, 100%] | [96.5%, 100%] | [50.5%, 62.0%] | [60.9%, 71.9%] | [58.9%, 69.5%] | [62.7%, 73.3%] | [59.1%, 69.9%] | [61.1%, 72.2%] | [61.5%, 73.6%] |
| 2024 | Recall | [91.1%, 97.3%] | [91.8%, 97.6%] | [91.0%, 99.5%] | [96.9%, 100%] | [98.2%, 100%] | [98.5%, 100%] | [95.9%, 100%] | [97.0%, 100%] | [96.7%, 100%] |
| 2024 | Lower_Limit | [1.00, 1.00] | [1.00, 1.00] | [0.76, 0.88] | [0.48, 0.55] | [0.28, 0.31] | [0.60, 0.61] | [0.78, 0.85] | [2.34, 3.10] | [7.97, 10.09] |
| 2024 | Upper_Limit | [1.00, Inf] | [1.00, Inf] | [1.35, 1.49] | [0.86, 0.87] | [0.60, 0.62] | [0.84, 0.86] | [2.75, 3.20] | [9.82, 12.65] | [22.52, 26.38] |
| 2025 | Accuracy | [89.5%, 94.6%] | [92.0%, 97.0%] | [59.7%, 74.1%] | [75.3%, 86.8%] | [74.4%, 83.2%] | [74.7%, 85.2%] | [74.7%, 83.8%] | [78.7%, 87.1%] | [83.2%, 89.8%] |
| 2025 | F1-Score | [89.0%, 94.9%] | [91.8%, 96.9%] | [69.5%, 80.5%] | [79.4%, 88.3%] | [77.3%, 86.2%] | [78.7%, 87.2%] | [77.9%, 86.1%] | [80.9%, 88.6%] | [84.5%, 91.1%] |
| 2025 | Kappa | [78.9%, 89.2%] | [84.1%, 94.0%] | [21.9%, 46.9%] | [50.1%, 73.1%] | [48.8%, 66.1%] | [49.7%, 69.7%] | [49.7%, 66.9%] | [57.4%, 74.0%] | [66.6%, 79.6%] |
| 2025 | Precision | [88.5%, 96.2%] | [91.8%, 98.3%] | [53.4%, 67.6%] | [66.5%, 80.2%] | [65.7%, 77.7%] | [66.2%, 79.6%] | [66.5%, 78.9%] | [71.0%, 82.9%] | [75.9%, 85.7%] |
| 2025 | Recall | [87.1%, 95.6%] | [90.2%, 97.0%] | [98.2%, 100%] | [95.8%, 100%] | [92.2%, 98.9%] | [92.0%, 99.4%] | [90.6%, 97.6%] | [91.1%, 97.6%] | [93.2%, 98.9%] |
| 2025 | Lower_Limit | [1.00, 1.00] | [1.00, 1.00] | [0.70, 0.84] | [0.60, 0.61] | [0.37, 0.38] | [0.65, 0.68] | [1.17, 1.24] | [3.73, 3.98] | [13.19, 13.43] |
| 2025 | Upper_Limit | [1.00, Inf] | [1.00, Inf] | [1.41, 1.44] | [0.82, 0.89] | [0.53, 0.57] | [0.79, 0.83] | [2.21, 2.59] | [7.28, 8.55] | [19.98, 21.76] |
| All Years | Accuracy | [92.3%, 94.7%] | [89.9%, 92.7%] | [54.9%, 62.4%] | [65.1%, 70.0%] | [63.8%, 68.8%] | [66.9%, 71.9%] | [66.4%, 71.0%] | [63.6%, 69.2%] | [65.5%, 72.6%] |
| All Years | F1-Score | [92.0%, 94.5%] | [88.9%, 92.2%] | [67.3%, 72.2%] | [73.0%, 77.2%] | [72.4%, 76.3%] | [74.1%, 78.3%] | [73.5%, 77.5%] | [71.3%, 76.1%] | [73.0%, 78.3%] |
| All Years | Kappa | [84.6%, 89.4%] | [79.7%, 85.3%] | [12.4%, 24.9%] | [32.1%, 39.9%] | [29.3%, 37.3%] | [35.4%, 44.2%] | [34.2%, 42.0%] | [28.7%, 38.6%] | [32.1%, 45.7%] |
| All Years | Precision | [94.0%, 96.7%] | [94.0%, 96.8%] | [51.5%, 57.5%] | [57.5%, 62.9%] | [56.8%, 61.7%] | [58.9%, 64.4%] | [58.7%, 63.9%] | [56.9%, 62.6%] | [58.2%, 65.1%] |
| All Years | Recall | [89.1%, 93.1%] | [83.9%, 88.8%] | [95.4%, 98.9%] | [100%, 100%] | [99.6%, 100%] | [99.3%, 100%] | [97.3%, 99.2%] | [94.2%, 98.4%] | [97.0%, 99.1%] |
| All Years | Lower_Limit | [1.00, 1.00] | [1.00, 1.00] | [0.69, 0.78] | [0.47, 0.49] | [0.28, 0.30] | [0.58, 0.60] | [0.78, 0.85] | [2.34, 2.99] | [7.97, 10.04] |
| All Years | Upper_Limit | [1.00, Inf] | [1.00, Inf] | [1.57, 1.68] | [0.87, 0.90] | [0.61, 0.63] | [0.86, 0.87] | [2.67, 2.96] | [8.96, 9.99] | [23.30, 24.82] |
| Year | P. kansuensis | Other Vegetation | Non- Vegetation | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 221 | 98 | 108 | 427 |
| 2022 | 98 | 92 | 62 | 252 |
| 2023 | 124 | 67 | 58 | 249 |
| 2024 | 209 | 98 | 95 | 402 |
| 2025 | 177 | 91 | 84 | 352 |
| Total | 829 | 446 | 407 | 1682 |
| Index | Full Name | Formula | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| RI | Red Index | Simple ratio sensitive to leaf/flower color changes, captures the “redness” of inflorescences. | |
| NDVI | Normalized Difference Vegetation Index | Standard proxy for vegetation greenness and biomass. | |
| NDRE | Normalized Difference Red Edge | Sensitive to chlorophyll content, less prone to saturation than NDVI in dense grass. | |
| GNDVI | Green NDVI | Indicates chlorophyll concentration, uses Green channel instead of Red. | |
| CIRE | Chlorophyll Index Red-Edge | Estimator of canopy chlorophyll content using the red-edge band. | |
| CIG | Chlorophyll Index Green | Estimator of chlorophyll using the green band, comparable to CIRE. | |
| ARI | Anthocyanin Reflectance Index | Estimator of anthocyanins using the green and red-edge bands, associated with red, blue, and purple pigmentation. | |
| PKI (raw) | P. kansuensis Index (raw) | Spectral-contrast index tailored to enhance flowering-season P. kansuensis signals while suppressing green-dominated native vegetation. | |
| PKI (ours) | P. kansuensis Index (PKI) | Spatially refined PKI using grayscale morphological opening to reduce background fluctuations and improve patch delineation. |
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. |
© 2026 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.
Share and Cite
Zhu, E.; Samat, A.; Li, W.; Luo, K. Monitoring the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Invasive Pedicularis kansuensis in Bayinbuluke Alpine Wetlands: A Novel Spectral Index Framework Using PlanetScope Time Series (2021–2025). Plants 2026, 15, 806. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15050806
Zhu E, Samat A, Li W, Luo K. Monitoring the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Invasive Pedicularis kansuensis in Bayinbuluke Alpine Wetlands: A Novel Spectral Index Framework Using PlanetScope Time Series (2021–2025). Plants. 2026; 15(5):806. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15050806
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhu, Enzhao, Alim Samat, Wenbo Li, and Kaiyue Luo. 2026. "Monitoring the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Invasive Pedicularis kansuensis in Bayinbuluke Alpine Wetlands: A Novel Spectral Index Framework Using PlanetScope Time Series (2021–2025)" Plants 15, no. 5: 806. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15050806
APA StyleZhu, E., Samat, A., Li, W., & Luo, K. (2026). Monitoring the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Invasive Pedicularis kansuensis in Bayinbuluke Alpine Wetlands: A Novel Spectral Index Framework Using PlanetScope Time Series (2021–2025). Plants, 15(5), 806. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants15050806

