Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Comparison of Image Classifications
using UAV Aerial Imagery for Mapping
Phragmites australis in Goat Island Marsh
Francis S. Hourigan
Master of Science in Environmental Management
May 19th 2016
University of San Francisco
Wetland Impacts from Invasive Species
Wetlands provide a variety of functions or
“ecosystem services”:
Groundwater recharge
Carbon storage
Species richness or biodiversity 1
1 Mitsch, William J.; Gosselink, James G. Wetlands. Wiley. Kindle Edition. (2015) 2 Chambers, R. M., Meyerson, L. a. & Saltonstall, K. Expansion of Phragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquat. Bot. 64, (1999): 261–273. 3 Hazelton, E. L. G., Mozdzer, T. J., Burdick, D. M., Kettenring, K. M. & Whigham, D. F. Phragmites australis management in the United States: 40 years of methods and outcomes. AoB Plants 6, (2014): 1–19. 4 (Steve Kohlman PhD, Pers. Comm. December 2015)
Phragmites australis (common reed grass)
Invades wetlands across the United States
and particularly large areas in the Great
Lakes 3.
Exotic species have been introduced
and proliferated over the last 150
years. 2
Non-native species are less desirable than
those of our native ecosystem.
Crowd out native species
Alter specialized habitats
Decrease the biodiversity4
Common Reed Grass:
Phragmites australis
Two genetic subspecies of Phragmites
australis native to the greater San
Francisco Bay and Delta.
Phragmites australis subsp.
berlandieri
Phragmites australis subsp.
americanus
1 (http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/) 2 Chambers, R. M., Osgood, D. T., Bart, D. J. & Montalto, F. Phragmites australis Invasion and Expansion in Tidal Wetlands: Interactions among Salinity, Sulfide, and Hydrology. Estuaries 26, (2003): 398–406. 3 Philipp, K. R. & Field, R. T. Phragmites australis expansion in Delaware Bay salt marshes. Ecol. Eng. 25, (2005): 275–291. 4 Hazelton, E. L. G., Mozdzer, T. J., Burdick, D. M., Kettenring, K. M. & Whigham, D. F. Phragmites australis management in the United States: 40 years of methods and outcomes. AoB Plants 6, (2014): 1–19.
Altered and degraded wetlands and low salinity
tidal marshes are more susceptible to invasion
by Phragmites
Low salinity marshes usually support
greater species richness than their
higher salinity counterparts 2 .
Phragmites is a member of the Poaceae family
(grasses).
It stands on average 2-4 meters (up to
13 feet) high.
Good nesting habitat for marsh birds.
Bank stabilization and sediment
accretion3.
Invades initially by seed and spreads
by root rhizomes and stolons4.
Treated by Grazing and Spraying
Indistinguishable without genetic testing
from the non-native invader. 1
Goat Island Marsh, Rush Ranch
Solano Land Trust
National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) • Rush Ranch is a 2,070-acre open space preserve that is owned and operated by
the Solano Land Trust.
• It is a working cattle ranch and a protected tidal saltmarsh habitat, as well as a
National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR).
• It is situated within the Suisun Bay and part of the extensive marsh habitat of the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (www.solanolandtrust.org).
The purpose of the Goat Island Marsh Restoration Project is to reestablish tidal flows
to the site and to reestablish characteristic marsh features and vegetation.
Restoration Goals:
Widen inlet channel
Lower the perimeter levee
Expand existing Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) ponds
Active weed control and native species revegetation.
Methods
Imagery Acquisition: National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) Imagery (~ 1m) was acquired
as an Esri Map Service from the Sonoma County Vegetation Mapping and
Lidar Project (sonomavegmap.org) and clipped to the Area of Interest in
Goat Island Marsh.
The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
Mission was flown by the DJI
Phantom 4 quad-copter, using the
PIX4D Capture App. on April 5th
2016.
An Orthomosaic Image of 81 photos
was created along with a Digital
Surface Model (DSM) with the PIX4D
Mapper Software.
Resolution was 3.4 cm / pixel
Green-up Signature of Phragmites in Early Spring (April 5th 2016)
Methods Imagery Pre-Processing and Segmentation
UAV Imagery Pre-processing Workflow:
RAW Imagery (.raw .tif
.jpg)
PIX4D or Drone2
Map
Mosaic Image or Mosaic Dataset
Comp-osite
(Imagery + DEM)
Segment / OBIA pixel
groups
Segmented UAV Imagery of AOI:
Fig. 2. (a) Aerial photograph of heterogeneous landscape (b) fine scale segmentation (c) coarse
scale segmentation (d) object based classification of woody cover, resulting in 97% accuracy
(originally from: Levick and Rogers, 2008). 1
1T. Blaschke. Object based image analysis for remote sensing. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Vol. 65, 1, 2010: 2–16.
Object Based Image Analysis (OBIA) is
used in complex landscapes where there
is a lot of heterogeneity of texture and
color.
Segments homogeneous groups
of pixels into objects
Objects can be classified into
types.
The result is a smoother image
classification with less salt and pepper
appearance 1.
Methods Segmentation
Methods Photointerpretation of Reference Data
Reference Data:
Random points were created and
then buffered by one meter.
The resulting random polygons
were assigned to one of 4 classes
using the high resolution UAV
2016 imagery.
The number of Training Data polygons was
approximately 60% of the original
reference data sample.
The remaining 40% of the reference data
was used to create the Accuracy
Assessment Data for the error matrices.
1 Congalton, R. G., Green, K. Assessing the Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Data: Principals and Practices. CRC Press Inc. (1999).
Methods Photointerpretation of Reference Data:
Training Data (60%):
Class # of Polygons
Phragmites australis 48
Mixed Emergent 60
Low Marsh 57
Upland 47
Accuracy Assessment Data (40%):
Class # of Polygons
Phragmites australis 30
Mixed Emergent 40
Low Marsh 36
Upland 36
Methods Image Classification
Image Classification Workflow
Reference data
• GIS Ground Truth Data
• Photointerpreted Training Data
Image Processing
• Orthomosaic Creation
• DSM Creation
Training Data
• Segmentation of Similar Pixels
• Create Training Sample Polygons
Image Classification
• Train Support Vector Machine
• Classify Raster
Accuracy Assessment
• Error (AKA Confusion) Matrix
1 Dronova, I. Object-Based Image Analysis in Wetland Research: A Review. Remote Sens. 7, (2015): 6380–6413.
Segmented NAIP 2014 Imagery using a
Segment Mean Shift
(1 pixel ~ 1 meter minimum segment size).
Analysis Image Classification Results
UAV 2016 Imagery Classification NAIP 2014 Imagery Classification
Speckled / salt and pepper appearance
Well defined vegetation /class
boundaries
Extract Pixel Values from Accuracy
Assessment Points
Create a Frequency Table of Truth vs.
Predict Values
Create Pivot Table and Export Error Matrix
Analysis Error Matrix
Error Matrix Creation in Model Builder:
Classified values are extracted from the Accuracy Assessment from the remaining
40% of the reference data.
Two attribute fields are created: ‘Truth’ and ‘Predict’
The frequency for each class in the truth and predict fields are computed.
A pivot table is generated with the class headings and their relative frequencies in
an Error Matrix format.
Results Error Matrix
Cla
ssif
ied
Dat
a
Reference Data
Class Upland Low
Marsh Mixed
Emergent Phragmite
s Row Total
Upland 34 2 0 3 39
Low Marsh
0 17 35 11 63
Mixed Emergent
2 13 5 2 22
Phragmites
0 4 0 14 18
Column Total
36 36 40 30 142
Cla
ssif
ied
Dat
a
Reference Data
Class Upland Low
Marsh Mixed
Emergent Phragmite
s Row Total
Upland 33 1 0 2 36
Low Marsh
0 13 35 3 51
Mixed Emergent
2 14 4 1 21
Phragmites
1 8 1 24 34
Column Total
36 36 40 30 142
NAIP 2014 Classified Imagery: Error Matrix 1
UAV 2016 Classified Imagery: Error Matrix 1
NAIP Producer’s Accuracy Upland = 94% Low Marsh = 47% Mixed Emergent = 13% Phragmites = 47% NAIP User’s Accuracy Upland = 87% Low Marsh = 27% Mixed Emergent = 23% Phragmites = 78%
1 Congalton, R. G., Green, K. Assessing the Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Data: Principals and Practices. CRC Press Inc. (1999).
UAV Producer’s Accuracy Upland = 92% Low Marsh = 36% Mixed Emergent = 10% Phragmites = 80% UAV User’s Accuracy Upland = 92% Low Marsh = 25% Mixed Emergent = 19% Phragmites = 71%
NAIP Overall Accuracy = 49% UAV Overall Accuracy = 52%
Conclusion Error Matrix Accuracy Assessment
The Overall Accuracy of the UAV classification (52%) was greater than the NAIP classification (49%).
• The Producer’s Accuracy of 80% for Phragmites is good
• (significant according to Congalton and Green (1999) 1 is 85%).
Producer’s Accuracy = % of Phragmites mapped without errors (commission / omission)
• The User’s Accuracy of 71% is still fairly high (if not quite 85%).
User’s Accuracy = % of Phragmites mapped that is actually Phragmites on the ground.
If the overall goal was to accurately map Phragmites australis, than a Producer’s Accuracy of 80% for the UAV
imagery classification and User’s Accuracy of 71% are favorable values.
• The NAIP Producer’s (47%) and User’s (78%) accuracies are fairly good as well.
• The major difference is the usability of the image classification map:
The UAV 2016 classification is more accurate for capturing Phragmites in the Map
Both classifications are useful as maps of Phragmites actually on the ground.
1 Congalton, R. G., Green, K. Assessing the Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Data: Principals and Practices. CRC Press Inc. (1999).
Conclusion Discussion & Next Steps…
• More GPS ground-truth or photo-interpreted points
should be used.1
• A hierarchical OBIA classification has been shown
in some cases to give better classification results.
– First classify upland from wetland then low marsh vs. high
marsh finally individual species or alliances.
• Smaller macro-pixel size when segmenting the UAV
Imagery (or no segmentation?)
• Incorporating elevation (plant height) data from a
Digital Surface Model (DSM) and/or texture
information (enhance the ability to identify
Phragmites from the surrounding vegetation.3)
1 Congalton, R. G., Green, K. Assessing the Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Data: Principals and Practices. CRC Press Inc. (1999). 2Moffett, K. B. & Gorelick, S. M. Distinguishing wetland vegetation and channel features with object-based image segmentation. Int. J. Remote Sens. 34, 2013: 1332–1354. 3 Susan Ustin, Personal Communication February, 2nd 2016
In the above DSM: red is high elevation and blue is low elevation.
Conclusion Further Research
Composite Raster Stack: RGB + DSM + Texture
Class Upland Low Marsh Mixed
Emergent Phragmites Row Total
Upland 33 1 0 2 36
Low Marsh 2 14 4 1 21
Mixed Emergent 0 13 35 3 51
Phragmites 1 8 1 24 34
Column Total 36 36 40 30 142
UAV 2016 & DSM Composite Image Error Matrix
Overall Accuracy = 75%
UAV Composite Producer’s Accuracy Upland = 92% Low Marsh = 39% Mixed Emergent = 88% Phragmites = 80%
UAV Composite User’s Accuracy Upland = 92% Low Marsh = 67% Mixed Emergent = 69% Phragmites = 71%
Management Recommendations Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) in
Environmental Management • Early detection of Invasive species can improve management success by making their removal
more efficient and less expensive.1
• Remote Sensing can be a faster more economical monitoring tool to track vegetation changes
over time. 2
• Though UAVs are not a complete replacement for traditional field work, they do allow more
access to remote or challenging terrestrial and aquatic environments and can inform research
with more complete visual assessments.
• The use of UAVs will likely continue to increase in all sectors. 2
On May 4th 2016 the FAA Administrator announced plans to make the use of UAVs by students and researchers easier.
Currently, this is one of the major hurdles to the implementation of this technology.
This week more restrictions on commercial drone operation were lifted.
• High resolution imagery is a powerful tool in environmental research, conservation, and
management. 1 Dvořák, P., J. Müllerová , T. Bartaloš , J. Brůna. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Alien Plant Species Detection and Monitoring. Int. Arc. of Photogrammetry and Rem. Sens. and Spatial Info. Sci., Vol XL-1/W4, (2015): 83-90.
2Whitehead K & Hugenholtz C. Remote sensing of the environment with small unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), part 1: a review of progress and challenges. J. Unmanned Veh. Sys., vol: 216 , (2014): 69-8514 .
Acknowledgements: Dr. Tracy Benning,
Dr. David Saah, and Dr. Gretchen Coffman, University of San Francisco Steve Kohlman, Solano Land Trust
Jared Lewis, San Francisco State University The GIS Department, WRA
and Susan Ustin, University of California Davis