J. For. Sci., 2019, 65(1):18-26 | DOI: 10.17221/127/2018-JFS

Estimation of forest development stage and crown closure using different classification methods and satellite images: A case study from TurkeyOriginal Paper

Sinan Bulut*, Alkan Günlü, Sedat Keleş
Department of Forest Engineering, Faculty of Forestry, Çankiri Karatekin University, Çankiri, Turkey

The objective of this study is to estimate stand development stages (SDS) and stand crown closures (SCC) of forest using different classification methods (maximum likelihood, support vector machine: linear, polynomial, radial and sigmoid kernel functions and artificial neural network) based on satellite imagery of different resolution (Landsat 7 ETM+ and IKONOS). The results showed that SDS and SCC were estimated with Landsat 7 ETM+ image using the artificial neural network with a 0.83 and 0.78 kappa statistic value, and 92.57 and 89.77% overall accuracy assessments, respectively. On the other hand, SDS and SCC were predicted with IKONOS image using support vector machine (polynomial) method with a 0.94 and 0.88 kappa statistic value, and 95.95 and 91.17% overall accuracy assessments, respectively. Our results demonstrated that IKONOS satellite image and support vector machine (polynomial) method produced a better estimation of SDS and SCC as compared to Landsat 7 ETM+ and other supervised classification methods used in this study.

Keywords: supervised classification; stand attributes; support vector machine; artificial neural network; Landsat 7 ETM+; IKONOS

Published: January 31, 2019  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Bulut S, Günlü A, Keleş S. Estimation of forest development stage and crown closure using different classification methods and satellite images: A case study from Turkey. J. For. Sci. 2019;65(1):18-26. doi: 10.17221/127/2018-JFS.
Download citation

References

  1. Anonymous (2007): Management Plan of Uğurlu Forest Planning Unit between 2007-2026. Ardahan, Erzurum Forest Regional Directorate, Göle Forest Enterprise: 343.
  2. Anonymous (2008): Forest Management Guidelines. Ankara, Republic of Turkey, General Directorate of Forestry: 215.
  3. Bakirman T. (2014): Comparison of satellite images classified by different methods. In: Maktav D. (ed.): 5th Uzaktan Algilama-CBS Sempozyumu, Istanbul, Oct 14-17, 2014: 1-7.
  4. Başkent E.Z., Kadioğullari A.I. (2007): Spatial and temporal dynamics of land use pattern in Turkey: A case study in İnegöl. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81: 316-327. Go to original source...
  5. Bulut S., Günlü A. (2016): Comparison of different supervised classification algorithms for land use classes. Kastamonu University Journal of Forest Faculty, 16: 528-535. Go to original source...
  6. Bulut S., Günlü A., Keleş S. (2017): Evaluation of different supervised classification algorithms for crown closure classes: A case study of Yaprakli Forest Planning Unit, Çankiri. In: Fakir H. (ed.): International Symposium on New Horizons in Forestry, Isparta, Oct 18-20, 2017: 133-137.
  7. Chang C.C., Lin C.J. (2011): LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 2: 27. Go to original source...
  8. ERDAS LLC (2002): ERDAS Field Guide. 6th Ed. Atlanta, ERDAS LLC: 658.
  9. Gebreslasie M.T., Ahmed F.B., Van Aardt J.A.N. (2010): Predicting forest structural attributes using ancillary data and ASTER satellite data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 12S: S23-S26. Go to original source...
  10. Günlü A. (2012): Estimation of certain stand type parameters (growth stage and crown closure) and land cover using Landsat TM satellite image. Kastamonu University Journal of Forest Faculty, 12: 71-79.
  11. Günlü A., Sivrikaya F., Başkent E.Z., Keleş S., Çakir G., Kadioğullari A.I. (2008): Estimation of stand type parameters and land cover using Landsat-7 ETM image: A case study from Turkey. Sensors, 8: 2509-2525. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Hall R.J., Skakun R.S., Arsenault E.J. (2006): Modeling forest stand structure attributes using Landsat ETM+ data: Application to mapping of aboveground biomass and stand volume. Forest Ecology and Management, 225: 378-390. Go to original source...
  13. Hazini S., Hashim M. (2015): Comparative analysis of product-level fusion, support vector machine, and artificial neural network approaches for land cover mapping. Arabian Journal of Geosicences, 8: 9763-9773. Go to original source...
  14. Hsu C.W., Chang C.C., Lin C.J. (2016): A Practical Guide to Support Vector Classification. Taipei, National Taiwan University: 16.
  15. Hyyppa J., Hyyppa H., Inkinen M., Engdahl M., Linko S., Zhu Y. (2000): Accuracy comparison of various remote sensing data sources in the retrieval of forest stand attributes. Forest Ecology and Management, 128: 109-120. Go to original source...
  16. Kadioğullari A.I., Başkent E.Z. (2008): Spatial and temporal dynamics of land use pattern in Turkey: A case study in Gumushane. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 138: 289-303. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Kavzoglu T., Colkesen I. (2009): A kernel functions analysis for support vector machines for land cover classification. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 11: 352-359. Go to original source...
  18. Kayitakire F., Hamel C., Defourny P. (2006): Retrieving forest structure variables based on image texture analysis and IKONOS-2 imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment, 102: 390-401. Go to original source...
  19. Kulkarni A.D., Lowe B. (2016): Random forest algorithm for land cover classification. International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication, 4: 58-63.
  20. Lu D., Mausel P., Brondizio E., Moran E. (2004): Relationships between forests stand parameters and Landsat TM spectral responses in the Brazilian Amazon Basin. Forest Ecology and Management, 198: 149-167. Go to original source...
  21. Mohammadi J., Joibary S.S., Yaghmaee F., Mahiny A.S. (2010): Modelling forest stand volume and tree density using Landsat ETM data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 31: 2959-2975. Go to original source...
  22. Peuhkurinen J., Maltamo M., Vesa L., Packalén P. (2008): Estimation of forest stand characteristics using spectral histograms derived from an IKONOS satellite image. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 74: 1335-1341. Go to original source...
  23. Pilger N., Peddle D.R., Luther J.E. (2002): Estimation of forest cover type and structure from Landsat TM imagery using a canopy reflectance model for biomass mapping in Western Newfoundland. IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 3: 1324-1326. Go to original source...
  24. Sivrikaya F. (2011): The importance of spatial accuracy in characterizing stand types using remotely sensed data. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10: 14891-14906. Go to original source...
  25. Sivrikaya F., Keleş S., Çakir G., Başkent E.Z., Köse S. (2006): Comparing accuracy of classified Landsat data with land use maps reclassified from the stand type maps. In: Caetano M., Painho M. (eds): 7th International Symposium on Spatial Accuracy, Lisbon, July 5-7, 2006: 643-652.
  26. Srivastava P.K., Han D., Rico-Ramirez M.A., Bray M., Islam T. (2012): Selection of classification techniques for land use/land cover change investigation. Advances in Space Research, 50: 1250-1265. Go to original source...
  27. Taati A., Sarmadian F., Mousavi A., Pour C.T.H., Shahir A.H.E. (2015): Land use classification using support vector machine and maximum likelihood algorithms by Landsat-5 ETM images. Walailak Journal Science & Technology, 12: 681-687.
  28. Tolessa T., Senbeta F., Abebe T. (2017): Land use/land cover analysis and ecosystem services valuation in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 26: 111-123. Go to original source...
  29. Topaloğlu R.H., Sertel E., Musaoğlu N. (2016): Assessment of classification accuracies of Sentinel-2 and Landsat-8 data for land cover/use mapping. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLI-B8: 1055-1059. Go to original source...
  30. Ustuner M., Sanli F.B., Dixon B. (2015): Application of support vector machines for landuse classification using high-resolution RapidEye images: A sensitivity analysis. European Journal of Remote Sensing, 48: 403-422. Go to original source...
  31. Were K., Bui D.T., Dick Q.B., Singh B.R. (2015): A comparative assessment of support vector regression, artificial neural networks, and random forests for predicting and mapping soil organic carbon stocks across an Afromontane landscape. Ecological Indicators, 52: 394-403. Go to original source...
  32. Wu T.F., Lin C.J., Weng R.C. (2004): Probability estimates for multi-class classification by pairwise coupling. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 5: 975-1005.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.