Genus-Physiognomy-Ecosystem (GPE) System for Satellite-Based Classification of Plant Communities
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (i)
- (ii)
- Ecosystem [28]: Associated ecological significance, such as alpine herbaceous, wetland herbaceous, etc.;
- (iii)
- Physiognomy [29,30,31]: Physical appearance and structure (needle-leaved or broad-leaved), phenology (deciduous or evergreen), and life form (tree, shrub, or herb). For example, Evergreen Broadleaf Forest, Evergreen Conifer Forest, Deciduous Broadleaf Forest, Deciduous Conifer Forest, shrubland, and herbaceous;
- (iv)
- Phytosociological association [32]: Association of characteristic species, such as Saso kurilensis-Fagetum crenatae;
- (v)
- Community dominance [33]: Presence of dominant species, such as Abies mariesii, Fagus crenata, Quercus crispula, Quercus serrata, Sasa kurilensis, etc.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Enumeration of Dominant Plants
2.3. Genus-Physiognomy-Ecosystem (GPE) System
2.4. Processing of Landsat 8 Data
2.5. Machine Learning and Cross-Validation
3. Results
3.1. Classification at Physiognomy Level
3.2. Classification at Dominant Species Level
3.3. Classification at GPE Level
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Klanderud, K.; Vandvik, V.; Goldberg, D. The Importance of Biotic vs. Abiotic Drivers of Local Plant Community Composition Along Regional Bioclimatic Gradients. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0130205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Trivellone, V.; Bougeard, S.; Giavi, S.; Krebs, P.; Balseiro, D.; Dray, S.; Moretti, M. Factors shaping community assemblages and species co-occurrence of different trophic levels. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 4745–4754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mitchell, R.M.; Bakker, J.D.; Vincent, J.B.; Davies, G.M. Relative importance of abiotic, biotic, and disturbance drivers of plant community structure in the sagebrush steppe. Ecol. Appl. 2017, 27, 756–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aggemyr, E.; Cousins, S.A.O. Landscape structure and land use history influence changes in island plant composition after 100 years: Revisiting 27 islands after 100 years. J. Biogeogr. 2012, 39, 1645–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Echeverry, J.; Echeverría, C.; Oyarzún, C.; Morales, L. Impact of land-use change on biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Chilean temperate forests. Landsc. Ecol. 2018, 33, 439–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliver, T.H.; Morecroft, M.D. Interactions between climate change and land use change on biodiversity: Attribution problems, risks, and opportunities: Interactions between climate change and land use change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2014, 5, 317–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guo, F.; Lenoir, J.; Bonebrake, T.C. Land-use change interacts with climate to determine elevational species redistribution. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Miyawaki, A.; Fujiwara, K. Vegetation Mapping in Japan. In Vegetation Mapping; Küchler, A.W., Zonneveld, I.S., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1988; pp. 427–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fanelli, F.; Bianco, M.; D’Angeli, D.; De Sanctis, M.; Sauli, A.S.; Testi, A.; Pignatti, S. Remote sensing in phytosociology: The map of vegetation of the Provincia of Rome. Ann. Bot. 2005, 5, 173–184. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, Y.; Sha, Z.; Yu, M. Remote sensing imagery in vegetation mapping: A review. J. Plant Ecol. 2008, 1, 9–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiarucci, A.; Araújo, M.B.; Decocq, G.; Beierkuhnlein, C.; Fernández-Palacios, J.M. The concept of potential natural vegetation: An epitaph? J. Veg. Sci. 2010, 21, 1172–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levavasseur, G.; Vrac, M.; Roche, D.M.; Paillard, D. Statistical modelling of a new global potential vegetation distribution. Environ. Res. Lett. 2012, 7, 044019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hengl, T.; Walsh, M.G.; Sanderman, J.; Wheeler, I.; Harrison, S.P.; Prentice, I.C. Global mapping of potential natural vegetation: An assessment of machine learning algorithms for estimating land potential. PeerJ 2018, 6, e5457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Johansen, K.; Coops, N.C.; Gergel, S.E.; Stange, Y. Application of high spatial resolution satellite imagery for riparian and forest ecosystem classification. Remote Sens. Environ. 2007, 110, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meroni, M.; Ng, W.; Rembold, F.; Leonardi, U.; Atzberger, C.; Gadain, H.; Shaiye, M. Mapping Prosopis juliflora in West Somaliland with Landsat 8 Satellite Imagery and Ground Information. Land Degrad. Dev. 2017, 28, 494–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Wan, B.; Qiu, P.; Su, Y.; Guo, Q.; Wang, R.; Sun, F.; Wu, X. Evaluating the Performance of Sentinel-2, Landsat 8 and Pléiades-1 in Mapping Mangrove Extent and Species. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Burai, P.; Deák, B.; Valkó, O.; Tomor, T. Classification of Herbaceous Vegetation Using Airborne Hyperspectral Imagery. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 2046–2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fu, B.; Wang, Y.; Campbell, A.; Li, Y.; Zhang, B.; Yin, S.; Xing, Z.; Jin, X. Comparison of object-based and pixel-based Random Forest algorithm for wetland vegetation mapping using high spatial resolution GF-1 and SAR data. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 73, 105–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langford, Z.L.; Kumar, J.; Hoffman, F.M.; Breen, A.L.; Iversen, C.M. Arctic Vegetation Mapping Using Unsupervised Training Datasets and Convolutional Neural Networks. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adagbasa, E.G.; Adelabu, S.A.; Okello, T.W. Application of deep learning with stratified K-fold for vegetation species discrimation in a protected mountainous region using Sentinel-2 image. Geocarto Int. 2019, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuxen, R. Die huetige potentielle naturliche Vegetation als Gegestand der Vegetationskarierung. Angew. Pflanz. 1956, 13, 5–42. [Google Scholar]
- Sharma, R.C.; Hara, K.; Tateishi, R. High-Resolution Vegetation Mapping in Japan by Combining Sentinel-2 and Landsat 8 Based Multi-Temporal Datasets through Machine Learning and Cross-Validation Approach. Land 2017, 6, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dobremez, J. Le Népal Ecologie et Biogeography; Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique: Paris, France, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Ohsawa, M.; Shakya, P.R.; Numata, M. Distribution and Succession of West Himalayan Forest Types in the Eastern Part of the Nepal Himalaya. Mt. Res. Dev. 1986, 6, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gianguzzi, L.; Papini, F.; Cusimano, D. Phytosociological survey vegetation map of Sicily (Mediterranean region). J. Maps 2016, 12, 845–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Köppen, W. Das geographische System der Klimate, Handbuch der Klimatologie; Band, I., Teil, C., Eds.; Gebruder Borntraeger: Berlin, Germany, 1936; p. 46. [Google Scholar]
- Metzger, M.J.; Bunce, R.G.H.; Jongman, R.H.G.; Sayre, R.; Trabucco, A.; Zomer, R. A high-resolution bioclimate map of the world: A unifying framework for global biodiversity research and monitoring: High-resolution bioclimate map of the world. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2013, 22, 630–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bailey, R.G. Ecosystem Geography: From Ecoregions to Sites; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Küchler, A.W. A physiognomic classification of vegetation. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1949, 39, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beard, J.S. The Physiognomic Approach. In Classification of Plant Communities; Whittaker, R.H., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1978; pp. 33–64. [Google Scholar]
- Grossman, D.; Faber-Langendoen, D.; Weakley, A.; Anderson, M.; Bourgeron, P.; Crawford, R.; Goodin, K.; Landaal, S.; Metzler, K.; Patterson, K. International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States; The Nature Conservancy: Arlington, VA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Dengler, J. Phytosociology. In International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology; Richardson, D., Castree, N., Goodchild, M.F., Kobayashi, A., Liu, W., Marston, R.A., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whittaker, R.H. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 1972, 21, 213–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
1. Abies firma | 33. Carpinus tschonoskii | 65. Narthecium asiaticum | 97. Rhynchospora alba |
2. Abies homolepis | 34. Castanea crenata | 66. Nephrophyllidium crista-galli | 98. Robinia pseudoacacia |
3. Abies mariesii | 35. Celtis jessoensis | 67. Persicaria lapathifolia | 99. Rosa rugosa |
4. Abies sachalinensis | 36. Cercidiphyllum japonicum | 68. Phalaris arundinacea | 100. Salix caprea |
5. Acer crataegifolium | 37. Chamaecyparis obtusa | 69. Phragmites australis | 101. Salix eriocarpa |
6. Acer micranthum | 38. Cornus controversa | 70. Phragmites japonica | 102. Salix gilgiana |
7. Acer palmatum | 39. Cryptomeria japonica | 71. Phyllostachys bambusoides | 103. Salix integra |
8. Acer pictum | 40. Dicentra peregrina | 72. Phyllostachys edulis | 104. Salix jessoensis |
9. Acer rufinerve | 41. Elaeagnus umbellata | 73. Picea abies | 105. Salix reinii |
10. Acer tschonoskii | 42. Empetrum nigrum | 74. Pinus densiflora | 106. Salix sachalinensis |
11. Aesculus turbinata | 43. Eriophorum vaginatum | 75. Pinus parviflora | 107. Salix subfragilis |
12. Alnus hirsuta | 44. Fagus crenata | 76. Pinus pumila | 108. Sasa kurilensis |
13. Alnus japonica | 45. Fagus japonica | 77. Pinus thunbergii | 109. Sasa palmata |
14. Alnus maximowiczii | 46. Festuca ovina | 78. Populus nigra | 110. Sasa senanensis |
15. Alnus pendula | 47. Fraxinus mandshurica | 79. Populus suaveolens | 111. Scirpus yagara |
16. Alnus sieboldiana | 48. Geum pentapetalum | 80. Potentilla matsumurae | 112. Solidago altissima |
17. Amorpha fruticosa | 49. Imperata cylindrica | 81. Prunus grayana | 113. Thuja standishii |
18. Angelica ursina | 50. Ischaemum anthephoroides | 82. Prunus sargentii | 114. Thujopsis dolabrata |
19. Aralia elata | 51. Juglans mandshurica | 83. Prunus verecunda | 115. Tilia japonica |
20. Artemisia montana | 52. Juncus fauriei | 84. Prunus yedoensis | 116. Toxicodendron vernicifluum |
21. Betula ermanii | 53. Larix kaempferi | 85. Pterocarya rhoifolia | 117. Tsuga diversifolia |
22. Betula maximowicziana | 54. Ledum palustre | 86. Pueraria lobata | 118. Typha domingensis |
23. Betula platyphylla | 55. Lespedeza bicolor | 87. Quercus acutissima | 119. Typha latifolia |
24. Calystegia soldanella | 56. Leymus mollis | 88. Quercus dentata | 120. Typha orientalis |
25. Carex kobomugi | 57. Machilus thunbergii | 89. Quercus crispula | 121. Ulmus davidiana |
26. Carex limosa | 58. Magnolia obovata | 90. Quercus myrsinifolia | 122. Weigela hortensis |
27. Carex middendorffii | 59. Menyanthes trifoliata | 91. Quercus salicina | 123. Zelkova serrata |
28. Carex omiana | 60. Miscanthus sacchariflorus | 92. Quercus serrata | 124. Zizania latifolia |
29. Carex scabrifolia | 61. Miscanthus sinensis | 93. Quercus variabilis | 125. Zoysia japonica |
30. Carex thunbergii | 62. Moliniopsis japonica | 94. Reynoutria sachalinensis | 126. Zoysia macrostachya |
31. Carpinus cordata | 63. Morus australis | 95. Rhododendron degronianum | |
32. Carpinus laxiflora | 64. Myrica gale | 96. Rhododendron tschonoskii |
Dominant Species | Physiognomy/Ecosystem | GPE | Inference |
---|---|---|---|
Acer micranthum | Shrub | Acer Shrub | Genus-Physiognomy |
Acer palmatum | DBF | Acer DBF | Genus-Physiognomy |
Acer pictum | DBF | Acer DBF | Genus-Physiognomy |
Acer tschonoskii | Shrub | Acer Shrub | Genus-Physiognomy |
Calamagrostis arundinacea | Herb/Alpine | Alpine Herb | Physiognomy-Ecosystem |
Calamagrostis matsumurae | Herb/Alpine | Alpine Herb | Physiognomy-Ecosystem |
Calamagrostis purpurea | Herb/Alpine | Alpine Herb | Physiognomy-Ecosystem |
Miscanthus sacchariflorus | Herb | Miscanthus Herb | Genus-Physiognomy |
Miscanthus sinensis | Herb | Miscanthus Herb | Genus-Physiognomy |
Phragmites australis | Herb/Wetland | Wetland Herb | Physiognomy-Ecosystem |
Phragmites japonica | Herb/Wetland | Wetland Herb | Physiognomy-Ecosystem |
Pinus densiflora | ECF | Pinus ECF | Genus-Physiognomy |
Pinus parviflora | ECF | Pinus ECF | Genus-Physiognomy |
Pinus pumila | Shrub | Pinus Shrub | Genus-Physiognomy |
Pinus thunbergii | ECF | Pinus ECF | Genus-Physiognomy |
Potamogeton crispus | Herb | Wetland Herb | Physiognomy-Ecosystem |
Potamogeton distinctus | Herb | Wetland Herb | Physiognomy-Ecosystem |
Quercus acutissima | DBF | Quercus DBF | Genus-Physiognomy |
Quercus dentata | DBF | Quercus DBF | Genus-Physiognomy |
Quercus crispula | DBF | Quercus DBF | Genus-Physiognomy |
Quercus crispula | Shrub | Quercus Shrub | Genus-Physiognomy |
Quercus myrsinifolia | EBF | Quercus EBF | Genus-Physiognomy |
Quercus salicina | EBF | Quercus EBF | Genus-Physiognomy |
Quercus serrata | DBF | Quercus DBF | Genus-Physiognomy |
Quercus variabilis | DBF | Quercus DBF | Genus-Physiognomy |
Reynoutria sachalinensis | Herb | Wetland Herb | Physiognomy-Ecosystem |
Rhododendron degronianum | Shrub | Rhododendron Shrub | Genus-Physiognomy |
Rhododendron tschonoskii | Shrub | Rhododendron Shrub | Genus-Physiognomy |
Sasa kurilensis | Shrub | Sasa Shrub | Genus-Physiognomy |
Sasa palmata | Shrub | Sasa Shrub | Genus-Physiognomy |
Sasa senanensis | Shrub | Sasa Shrub | Genus-Physiognomy |
Scirpus triqueter | Herb/Wetland | Wetland Herb | Physiognomy-Ecosystem |
Scirpus wichurae | Herb/Wetland | Wetland Herb | Physiognomy-Ecosystem |
Typha latifolia | Herb/Wetland | Wetland Herb | Physiognomy-Ecosystem |
Typha orientalis | Herb/Wetland | Wetland Herb | Physiognomy-Ecosystem |
Class | Kappa | f1-Score |
---|---|---|
Deciduous Broadleaf Forest | 0.829 | 0.891 |
Deciduous Conifer Forest | 0.613 | 0.615 |
Evergreen Broadleaf Forest | 0.901 | 0.904 |
Evergreen Conifer Forest | 0.825 | 0.842 |
Herb | 0.859 | 0.900 |
Shrub | 0.807 | 0.847 |
Overall | 0.834 | 0.879 |
Class | Kappa | Class | Kappa | Class | Kappa | Class | Kappa |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.856 | 33 | 0.888 | 65 | 0.697 | 97 | 0.440 |
2 | 1.000 | 34 | 0.941 | 66 | 0.941 | 98 | 0.748 |
3 | 0.841 | 35 | 0.941 | 67 | 1.000 | 99 | 0.941 |
4 | 0.874 | 36 | 0.947 | 68 | 0.712 | 100 | 0.947 |
5 | 1.000 | 37 | 0.947 | 69 | 0.856 | 101 | 0.933 |
6 | 0.941 | 38 | 0.947 | 70 | 0.798 | 102 | 0.933 |
7 | 0.816 | 39 | 0.941 | 71 | 0.496 | 103 | 0.941 |
8 | 0.370 | 40 | 0.947 | 72 | 0.622 | 104 | 0.874 |
9 | 0.747 | 41 | 0.899 | 73 | 0.888 | 105 | 1.000 |
10 | 0.692 | 42 | 0.941 | 74 | 0.856 | 106 | 0.768 |
11 | 0.780 | 43 | 1.000 | 75 | 0.856 | 107 | 0.748 |
12 | 0.530 | 44 | 0.874 | 76 | 1.000 | 108 | 0.947 |
13 | 0.941 | 45 | 0.841 | 77 | 0.552 | 109 | 1.000 |
14 | 0.664 | 46 | 1.000 | 78 | 0.734 | 110 | 0.888 |
15 | 0.941 | 47 | 0.874 | 79 | 0.874 | 111 | 0.749 |
16 | 0.888 | 48 | 0.416 | 80 | 1.000 | 112 | 0.726 |
17 | 0.776 | 49 | 0.776 | 81 | 0.888 | 113 | 0.933 |
18 | 0.613 | 50 | 0.179 | 82 | 0.888 | 114 | 0.874 |
19 | 0.760 | 51 | 0.622 | 83 | 0.664 | 115 | 0.947 |
20 | 0.832 | 52 | 0.776 | 84 | 0.888 | 116 | 1.000 |
21 | 0.776 | 53 | 0.874 | 85 | 0.425 | 117 | 0.822 |
22 | 0.585 | 54 | 0.800 | 86 | 0.822 | 118 | 0.909 |
23 | 0.822 | 55 | 0.941 | 87 | 0.899 | 119 | 0.947 |
24 | 0.933 | 56 | 0.816 | 88 | 0.664 | 120 | 1.000 |
25 | 0.605 | 57 | 1.000 | 89 | 0.458 | 121 | 0.888 |
26 | 0.495 | 58 | 0.841 | 90 | 0.665 | 122 | 1.000 |
27 | 0.760 | 59 | 0.530 | 91 | 0.888 | 123 | 0.874 |
28 | 0.664 | 60 | 0.841 | 92 | 0.856 | 124 | 0.748 |
29 | 0.760 | 61 | 0.748 | 93 | 0.947 | 125 | 0.941 |
30 | 1.000 | 62 | 0.262 | 94 | 0.799 | 126 | 0.947 |
31 | 0.888 | 63 | 0.841 | 95 | 1.000 | Overall | 0.820 |
32 | 0.947 | 64 | 0.947 | 96 | 0.748 |
Class | Kappa | f1-Score | Class | Kappa | f1-Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abies ECF | 0.861 | 0.866 | Other Shrub | 0.893 | 0.901 |
Acer DBF | 0.891 | 0.894 | Phyllostachys EBF | 0.847 | 0.850 |
Acer Shrub | 0.807 | 0.811 | Picea ECF | 0.947 | 0.947 |
Aesculus DBF | 0.941 | 0.941 | Pinus ECF | 0.819 | 0.824 |
Alnus DBF | 0.873 | 0.875 | Pinus Shrub | 0.888 | 0.889 |
Alnus Shrub | 0.940 | 1.000 | Populus DBF | 0.908 | 0.909 |
Alpine Herb | 0.971 | 0.941 | Prunus DBF | 0.929 | 0.932 |
Betula DBF | 0.940 | 0.971 | Pterocarya DBF | 0.664 | 0.667 |
Carex Herb | 0.698 | 0.741 | Quercus DBF | 0.876 | 0.882 |
Carpinus DBF | 0.918 | 0.913 | Quercus EBF | 0.960 | 0.960 |
Castanea DBF | 1.000 | 0.920 | Quercus Shrub | 0.941 | 0.941 |
Celtis DBF | 1.000 | 1.000 | Rhododendron Shrub | 0.928 | 0.929 |
Cercidiphyllum DBF | 0.941 | 1.000 | Robinia DBF | 0.748 | 0.750 |
Chamaecyparis ECF | 0.776 | 0.741 | Salix DBF | 0.830 | 0.836 |
Cornus DBF | 0.799 | 0.778 | Salix Shrub | 0.819 | 0.824 |
Cryptomeria ECF | 0.947 | 0.900 | Sasa Shrub | 0.854 | 0.857 |
Fagus DBF | 0.902 | 0.947 | Thuja ECF | 1.000 | 1.000 |
Fraxinus DBF | 0.947 | 0.903 | Thujopsis ECF | 0.941 | 0.941 |
Juglans DBF | 0.713 | 0.747 | Tilia DBF | 0.947 | 0.947 |
Larix DCF | 0.874 | 0.714 | Tsuga ECF | 0.822 | 0.824 |
Machilus EBF | 0.874 | 0.875 | Ulmus DBF | 0.941 | 0.941 |
Magnolia DBF | 0.888 | 0.875 | Weigela Shrub | 0.941 | 0.941 |
Miscanthus Herb | 0.880 | 0.889 | Wetland Herb | 0.855 | 0.865 |
Morus Shrub | 0.874 | 0.882 | Zelkova DBF | 0.822 | 0.824 |
Myrica Shrub | 0.941 | 0.875 | Zoysia Herb | 0.887 | 0.889 |
Other Herb | 0.842 | 0.862 | Overall | 0.872 | 0.877 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the author. 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
Sharma, R.C. Genus-Physiognomy-Ecosystem (GPE) System for Satellite-Based Classification of Plant Communities. Ecologies 2021, 2, 203-213. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies2020012
Sharma RC. Genus-Physiognomy-Ecosystem (GPE) System for Satellite-Based Classification of Plant Communities. Ecologies. 2021; 2(2):203-213. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies2020012
Chicago/Turabian StyleSharma, Ram C. 2021. "Genus-Physiognomy-Ecosystem (GPE) System for Satellite-Based Classification of Plant Communities" Ecologies 2, no. 2: 203-213. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies2020012