A deep learning approach for automatic mapping of poplar plantations using Sentinel-2 imagery
Poplars are one of the most widespread fast-growing tree species used for forest plantations. Owing to their distinct features (fast growth and short rotation) and the dependency on the timber price market, poplar plantations are characterized by large inter-annual fluctuations in their extent and d...
Saved in:
Published in: | GIScience and remote sensing Vol. 58; no. 8; pp. 1352 - 1368 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Journal Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Taylor & Francis
17-11-2021
Taylor & Francis Group |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Poplars are one of the most widespread fast-growing tree species used for forest plantations. Owing to their distinct features (fast growth and short rotation) and the dependency on the timber price market, poplar plantations are characterized by large inter-annual fluctuations in their extent and distribution. Therefore, monitoring poplar plantations requires a frequent update of information - not feasible by National Forest Inventories due to their periodicity - achievable by remote sensing systems applications. In particular, the new Sentinel-2 mission, with a revisiting period of 5 days, represents a potentially efficient tool for meeting this need.
In this paper, we present a deep learning approach for mapping poplar plantations using Sentinel-2 time series. A reference dataset of poplar plantations was available for a large study area of more than 46,000 km
2
in Northern Italy and served as training and testing data. Two classification methods were compared: (1) a fully connected neural network (also called multilayer perceptron), and (2) a traditional logistic regression. The performance of the two approaches was estimated through bootstrapping procedure with a confidence interval of 99%. Results indicated for deep learning an omission error rate of 2.77%±2.76%, showing improvements compared to logistic regression, omission error rate = 8.91%±4.79%. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1548-1603 1943-7226 |
DOI: | 10.1080/15481603.2021.1988427 |