A Semi-Automated, Multi-Source Data Fusion Update of a Wetland Inventory for East-Central Minnesota, USA

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Steven M. Kloiber ; Robb D. Macleod ; Aaron J. Smith ; Joseph F. Knight…
• 关键词：Wetlands inventory ; Wetland mapping ; Accuracy assessment ; Remote sensing
• 刊名：Wetlands
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：April 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：35
• 期：2
• 页码：335-348
• 全文大小：2,970 KB
• 参考文献：1. Alaska Satellite Facility (2011) MapReady Remote Sensing Tool Kit Version 2.3.17 [computer software]. Available from f="https://www.asf.alaska.edu/data-tools/mapready/" class="a-plus-plus">https://www.asf.alaska.edu/data-tools/mapready/
  2. Austin, JE, Buhl, TK, Guntenspergen, GR, Norling, W, Sklebar, HT (2001) Duck populations as indicators of landscape condition in the prairie pothole region. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 69: pp. 29-48 f="http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010748527667" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  3. Baatz, M, Sch?pe, A Multiresolution segmentation: an optimization approach for high quality multi-scale image segmentation. In: Strobl, J, Blaschke, T eds. (2000) Angewandte geographische informationsverarbeitung XII. Wichmann, Heidelberg, pp. 12-23
  4. Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp (2011) Opticks Version 4.7.1. Available from f="http://opticks.org/" class="a-plus-plus">http://opticks.org
  5. Beven, KJ, Kirkby, MJ (1979) A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Journal 24: pp. 43-69 f="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02626667909491834" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  6. Bourgeau-Chavez, LL, Kowalski, KP, Carlson Mazur, ML, Scarbrough, KA, Powell, RB, Brooks, CN, Huberty, B, Jenkins, LK, Banda, EC, Galbraith, DM, Laubach, ZM, Riordan, K (2013) Mapping invasive phragmites Australis in the coastal great lakes with ALOS PALSAR satellite imagery for decision support. Journal of Great Lakes Research 39: pp. 65-77 f="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2012.11.001" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  7. Breiman, L (2001) Random forests. Machine Learning 45: pp. 5-32 f="http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  8. Brisco, B, Touzi, R, Sanden, J, Charbonneau, F, Pultz, T, D’Iorio, M (2008) Water resource applications with Radarsat-2. International Journal of Digital Earth 1: pp. 130-147 f="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17538940701782577" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  9. Burkett, V, Kusler, J (2000) Climate change: potential impacts and interactions in wetlands of the United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36: pp. 313-320 f="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2000.tb04270.x" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  10. Congalton RG, Green K (2008) Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data: principles and practices. CRC press
  11. Corcoran, JM, Knight, JF, Brisco, B, Kaya, S, Cull, A, Murhnaghan, K (2011) The integration of optical, topographic, and radar data for wetland mapping in northern Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 27: pp. 564-582
  12. Corcoran, JM, Knight, JF, Gallant, AL (2013) Influence of multi-source and multi-temporal remotely sensed and ancillary data on the accuracy of random forest classification of wetlands in Northern Minnesota. Remote Sensing 5: pp. 3212-3238 f="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs5073212" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  13. Costa LT, Farinha JC, Vives PT, Hecker N, Silva EP (2001) Regional wetland inventory approaches: The Mediterranean example. In / Wetland Inventory, Assessment and Monitoring: Practical Techniques and Identification of Major Issues. Finlayson CM, Davidson NC & Stevenson NJ (eds). Proceedings of Workshop 4, 2nd International Conference on Wetlands and Development, Dakar, Senegal, 8-4 November 1998, Supervising Scientist Report 161, Supervising Scientist, Darwin
  14. Cowardin, LM, Carter, V, Golet, FC, LaRoe, ET (1979) Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. FWS/OBS/-79/31, Washington
  15. Dahl, TE, Dick, J, Swords, J, Wilen, BO (2009) Data collection requirements and procedures for mapping wetland, deepwater and related habitats of the United States. Division of habitat and resource conservation, national standards and support team. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Madison
  16. Definiens, AG (2009) Definiens eCognition developer 8 user guide. Definens AG, Munchen
  17. Dost RJJ, Mannaerts CMM (2008) Generation of lake bathymetry using sonar, satellite imagery and GIS. In / ESRI 2008: Proceedings of the 2008 ESRI International User Conference
  18. Drazkowski, B, May, M, Herrera, DT (2004) Comparison of 1983 and 1997 southern Michigan national wetland inventory data. Department of Environmental Quality, Geological and Land Management Division, Michigan
  ERDAS imagine version 9.2 [computer software]. Intergraph Corporation, Norcross
  StereoAnalyst for ArcGIS version 10.0 [computer softwar
• 刊物主题：Freshwater & Marine Ecology; Environmental Management; Ecology; Hydrogeology; Coastal Sciences; Landscape Ecology;
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1943-6246

文摘

Comprehensive wetland inventories are an essential tool for wetland management, but developing and maintaining an inventory is expensive and technically challenging. Funding for these efforts has also been problematic. Here we describe a large-area application of a semi-automated process used to update a wetland inventory for east-central Minnesota. The original inventory for this area was the product of a labor-intensive, manual photo-interpretation process. The present application incorporated high resolution, multi-spectral imagery from multiple seasons; high resolution elevation data derived from lidar; satellite radar imagery; and other GIS data. Map production combined image segmentation and random forest classification along with aerial photo-interpretation. More than 1000 validation data points were acquired using both independent photo-interpretation as well as field reconnaissance. Overall accuracy for wetland identification was 90?% compared to field data and 93?% compared to photo-interpretation data. Overall accuracy for wetland type was 72 and 78?% compared to field and photo-interpretation data, respectively. By automating the most time consuming part of the image interpretations, initial delineation of boundaries and identification of broad wetland classes, we were able to allow the image interpreters to focus their efforts on the more difficult components, such as the assignment of detailed wetland classes and modifiers.