Characterizing Land Use/Land Cover Using Multi-Sensor Time Series from the Perspective of Land Surface Phenology

Due to a rapid increase in accessible Earth observation data coupled with high computing and storage capabilities, multiple efforts over the past few years have aimed to map land use/land cover using image time series with promising outcomes. Here, we evaluate the comparative performance of alternative land cover classifications generated by using only (1) phenological metrics derived from either of two land surface phenology models, or (2) a suite of spectral band percentiles and normalized ratios (spectral variables), or (3) a combination of phenological metrics and spectral variables. First, several annual time series of remotely sensed data were assembled: Accumulated growing degree-days (AGDD) from the MODerate resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) 8-day land surface temperature products, 2-band Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI2), and the spectral variables from the Harmonized Landsat Sentinel-2, as well as from the U.S. Landsat Analysis Ready Data surface reflectance products. Then, at each pixel, EVI2 time series were fitted using two different land surface phenology models: The Convex Quadratic model (CxQ), in which EVI2 = f (AGDD) and the Hybrid Piecewise Logistic Model (HPLM), in which EVI2 = f (day of year). Phenometrics and spectral variables were submitted separately and together to Random Forest Classifiers (RFC) to depict land use/land cover in Roberts County, South Dakota. HPLM RFC models showed slightly better accuracy than CxQ RFC models (about 1% relative higher in overall accuracy). Compared to phenometrically-based RFC models, spectrally-based RFC models yielded more accurate land cover maps, especially for non-crop cover types. However, the RFC models built from spectral variables could not accurately classify the wheat class, which contained mostly spring wheat with some fields in durum or winter varieties. The most accurate RFC models were obtained when using both phenometrics and spectral variables as inputs. The combined-variable RFC models overcame weaknesses of both phenometrically-based classification (low accuracy for non-vegetated covers) and spectrally-based classification (low accuracy for wheat). The analysis of important variables indicated that land cover classification for this study area was strongly driven by variables related to the initial green-up phase of seasonal growth and maximum fitted EVI2. For a deeper evaluation of RFC performance, RFC classifications were also executed with several alternative sampling scenarios, including different spatiotemporal filters to improve accuracy of sample pools and different sample sizes. Results indicated that a sample pool with less filtering yielded the most accurate predicted land cover map and a stratified random sample dataset covering approximately 0.25% or more of the study area were required to achieve an accurate land cover map. In case of data scarcity, a smaller dataset might be acceptable, but should not smaller than 0.05% of the study area.

[1]  Maribeth Price,et al.  Impact of reference datasets and autocorrelation on classification accuracy , 2011 .

[2]  Geoffrey M. Henebry,et al.  Web-Enabled Landsat Data Time Series for Monitoring Urban Heat Island Impacts on Land Surface Phenology , 2016, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing.

[3]  Changshan Wu,et al.  The use of single-date MODIS imagery for estimating large-scale urban impervious surface fraction with spectral mixture analysis and machine learning techniques , 2013 .

[4]  Suming Jin,et al.  Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States – Representing a Decade of Land Cover Change Information , 2015 .

[5]  Zhaohui Xue,et al.  Phenology-Driven Land Cover Classification and Trend Analysis Based on Long-term Remote Sensing Image Series , 2014, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing.

[6]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[7]  Joanne C. White,et al.  Large Area Mapping of Annual Land Cover Dynamics Using Multitemporal Change Detection and Classification of Landsat Time Series Data , 2015 .

[8]  C. Woodcock,et al.  Continuous change detection and classification of land cover using all available Landsat data , 2014 .

[9]  Jennifer J. Richler,et al.  Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[10]  Xiaoyang Zhang,et al.  Impacts of Thermal Time on Land Surface Phenology in Urban Areas , 2017, Remote. Sens..

[11]  Koreen Millard,et al.  On the Importance of Training Data Sample Selection in Random Forest Image Classification: A Case Study in Peatland Ecosystem Mapping , 2015, Remote. Sens..

[12]  C. Justice,et al.  The Harmonized Landsat and Sentinel-2 surface reflectance data set , 2018, Remote Sensing of Environment.

[13]  Limin Yang,et al.  Development of a 2001 National land-cover database for the United States , 2004 .

[14]  Victor F. Rodriguez-Galiano,et al.  Classification of Vegetation Type in Iraq Using Satellite-Based Phenological Parameters , 2016, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing.

[15]  Geoffrey M. Henebry,et al.  Characterizing land cover/land use from multiple years of Landsat and MODIS time series: A novel approach using land surface phenology modeling and random forest classifier , 2020 .

[16]  David P. Roy,et al.  Analysis Ready Data: Enabling Analysis of the Landsat Archive , 2018, Remote. Sens..

[17]  Mary Ann Fajvan,et al.  A Comparison of Multispectral and Multitemporal Information in High Spatial Resolution Imagery for Classification of Individual Tree Species in a Temperate Hardwood Forest , 2001 .

[18]  P. Gong,et al.  A phenology-based approach to map crop types in the San Joaquin Valley, California , 2011 .

[19]  R. Houborg,et al.  A Cubesat enabled Spatio-Temporal Enhancement Method (CESTEM) utilizing Planet, Landsat and MODIS data , 2018 .

[20]  G. Henebry,et al.  Land surface phenology, climatic variation, and institutional change: Analyzing agricultural land cover change in Kazakhstan , 2004 .

[21]  G. Henebry,et al.  Remote Sensing of Land Surface Phenology: A Prospectus , 2013 .

[22]  Hankui K. Zhang,et al.  Using the 500 m MODIS Land Cover Product to Derive a Consistent Continental Scale 30 m Landsat Land Cover Classification , 2017 .

[23]  Peijun Du,et al.  Random Forest and Rotation Forest for fully polarized SAR image classification using polarimetric and spatial features , 2015 .

[24]  Rupesh Shrestha,et al.  Single and Multi-Date Landsat Classifications of Basalt to Support Soil Survey Efforts , 2013, Remote. Sens..

[25]  Cardona Alzate,et al.  Predicción y selección de variables con bosques aleatorios en presencia de variables correlacionadas , 2020 .

[26]  D. Lakens Equivalence Tests , 2017, Social psychological and personality science.

[27]  Audra Zakzeski,et al.  A Fresh Approach to Agricultural Statistics: Data Mining and Remote Sensing , 2009 .

[28]  C. Tucker Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring vegetation , 1979 .

[29]  Guangxing Wang,et al.  Phenology-based classification of vegetation cover types in Northeast China using MODIS NDVI and EVI time series , 2015 .

[30]  Russell G. Congalton,et al.  Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data : principles and practices , 1998 .

[31]  Xiaoyang Zhang,et al.  Reconstruction of a complete global time series of daily vegetation index trajectory from long-term AVHRR data , 2015 .

[32]  René Roland Colditz,et al.  An Evaluation of Different Training Sample Allocation Schemes for Discrete and Continuous Land Cover Classification Using Decision Tree-Based Algorithms , 2015, Remote. Sens..

[33]  J. Fry,et al.  Updating the 2001 National Land Cover Database land cover classification to 2006 by using Landsat imagery change detection methods , 2009 .

[34]  A. Strahler,et al.  Monitoring vegetation phenology using MODIS , 2003 .

[35]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[36]  Xiang Li,et al.  Land Cover Classification Based on Fused Data from GF-1 and MODIS NDVI Time Series , 2016, Remote. Sens..

[37]  G. Foody Classification accuracy comparison: hypothesis tests and the use of confidence intervals in evaluations of difference, equivalence and non-inferiority , 2009 .

[38]  A. Huete,et al.  Development of a two-band enhanced vegetation index without a blue band , 2008 .

[39]  Joanne C. White,et al.  Optical remotely sensed time series data for land cover classification: A review , 2016 .

[40]  Xiaoxia Wang,et al.  Land Cover Classification of Landsat Data with Phenological Features Extracted from Time Series MODIS NDVI Data , 2014, Remote. Sens..

[41]  Zhengwei Yang,et al.  Monitoring US agriculture: the US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Cropland Data Layer Program , 2011 .

[42]  G. Henebry,et al.  Exploration of scaling effects on coarse resolution land surface phenology , 2017 .

[43]  R. Pontius,et al.  Death to Kappa: birth of quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement for accuracy assessment , 2011 .

[44]  Mario Chica-Olmo,et al.  An assessment of the effectiveness of a random forest classifier for land-cover classification , 2012 .

[45]  M. Pal,et al.  Random forests for land cover classification , 2003, IGARSS 2003. 2003 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37477).

[46]  N. Nachar The Mann ‐ Whitney U: A Test for Assessing Whether Two Independent Samples Come from the Same Distribution , 2007 .