SAR Backscatter and InSAR Coherence for Monitoring Wetland Extent, Flood Pulse and Vegetation: A Study of the Amazon Lowland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data have been identified as a potential source of information for monitoring surface water, including open water and flooded vegetation, in frequent time intervals, which is very significant for flood mapping applications. The SAR specular reflectance separates open water and land surface, and its canopy penetration capability allows enhanced backscatter from flooded vegetation. Further, under certain conditions, the SAR signal from flooded vegetation may remain coherent between two acquisitions, which can be exploited using the InSAR technique. With these SAR capabilities in mind, this study examines the use of multi-temporal RADARSAT-2 C band SAR intensity and coherence components to monitor wetland extent, inundation and vegetation of a tropical wetland, such as Amazon lowland. For this study, 22 multi-temporal RADARSAT-2 images (21 pairs) were used for InSAR processing and the pairs in the low water stage (November, December) showed high coherence over the wetland areas. The three-year intensity stack was used for assessing wetland boundary, inundation extent, flood pulse, hydroperiod, and wetland vegetation. In addition to the intensity, derived coherence was used for classifying wetland vegetation. Wetland vegetation types were successfully classified with 86% accuracy using the statistical parameters derived from the multi-temporal intensity and coherence data stacks. We have found that in addition to SAR intensity, coherence provided information about wetland vegetation. In the next year, the Canadian RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM), will provide more data with frequent revisits, enhancing the application of SAR intensity and coherence for monitoring these types of wetlands at large scales.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".