Efforts are increasingly being made to classify the world’s wetland resources, an important ecosystem and habitat that is diminishing in abundance. There are multiple remote sensing classification methods, including a suite of nonparametric classifiers such as decision-tree (DT), rule-based (RB), and random forest (RF). High-resolution satellite imagery can provide more specificity to the classified end product, and ancillary data layers such as the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, and hydrogeomorphic layers such as distance-to-a-stream can be coupled to improve overall accuracy (OA) in wetland studies. In this paper, we contrast three nonparametric machine-learning algorithms (DT, RB, and RF) using a large field-based dataset (n = 228) from the Selenga River Delta of Lake Baikal, Russia. We also explore the use of ancillary data layers selected to improve OA, with a goal of providing end users with a recommended classifier to use and the most parsimonious suite of input parameters for classifying wetland-dominated landscapes. Though all classifiers appeared suitable, the RF classification outperformed both the DT and RB methods, achieving OA >81%. Including a texture metric (homogeneity) substantially improved the classification OA. However, including vegetation/soil/water metrics (based on WorldView-2 band combinations), hydrogeomorphic data layers, and elevation data layers to increase the descriptive content of the input parameters surprisingly did not markedly improve the OA. We conclude that, in most cases, RF should be the classifier of choice. The potential exception to this recommendation is under the circumstance where the end user requires narrative rules to best manage his or her resource. Though not useful in this study, continuously increasing satellite imagery resolution and band availability suggests the inclusion of ancillary contextual data layers such as soil metrics or elevation data, the granularity of which may define its utility in subsequent wetland classifications.

Wetland ecosystems straddle both terrestrial and aquatic habitats, performing many ecological functions directly and indirectly benefitting humans. However, global wetland losses are substantial. Satellite remote sensing and classification informs wise wetland management and monitoring. Both pixel- and object-based classification approaches using parametric and non-parametric algorithms may be effectively used in describing wetland structure and habitat, but which approach should one select? We conducted both pixel- and object-based image analyses (OBIA) using parametric (Iterative Self-Organizing Data Analysis Technique, ISODATA, and maximum likelihood, ML) and non-parametric (random forest, RF) approaches in the Barguzin Valley, a large wetland (~500 km2) in the Lake Baikal, Russia, drainage basin. Four Quickbird multispectral bands plus various spatial and spectral metrics (e.g., texture, Non-Differentiated Vegetation Index, slope, aspect, etc.) were analyzed using field-based regions of interest sampled to characterize an initial 18 ISODATA-based classes. Parsimoniously using a three-layer stack (Quickbird band 3, water ratio index (WRI), and mean texture) in the analyses resulted in the highest accuracy, 87.9% with pixel-based RF, followed by OBIA RF (segmentation scale 5, 84.6% overall accuracy), followed by pixel-based ML (83.9% overall accuracy). Increasing the predictors from three to five by adding Quickbird bands 2 and 4 decreased the pixel-based overall accuracy while increasing the OBIA RF accuracy to 90.4%. However, McNemar’s chi-square test confirmed no statistically significant difference in overall accuracy among the classifiers (pixel-based ML, RF, or object-based RF) for either the three- or five-layer analyses. Although potentially useful in some circumstances, the OBIA approach requires substantial resources and user input (such as segmentation scale selection—which was found to substantially affect overall accuracy). Hence, we conclude that pixel-based RF approaches are likely satisfactory for classifying wetland-dominated landscapes.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract