Mapping the Extent of Invasive Phragmites australis subsp. australis From Airborne Hyperspectral Imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasive species pose one of the greatest threats to global biodiversity. Early detection of invasive species is critical in order to prevent or manage their spread before they exceed the ability of land management groups to control them. Optical remote sensing has been established as a useful technology for the early detection and mapping of invasive vegetation populations. Through the use of airborne hyperspectral imagery (HSI), this study establishes a target detection methodology used to identify and map the invasive reed Phragmites australis subsp. australis within the entire extent of Îles-de-Boucherville National Park (Quebec, ON, Canada). We applied the Spectral Angle Mapper (SAM) target detection algorithm trained with a high accuracy GNSS ground truth data set to produce a park-wide map illustrating the extent of detected Phragmites. The total coverage of detected Phragmites was 26.74 ha (0.267 km2), which represents 3.28% of the total park area of 814 ha (8.14 km2). The inherent spatial uncertainty of the airborne HSI (∼2.25 m) was accounted for with uncertainty buffers, which, when included in the measurement of detected Phragmites, lead to a total area of 59.17 ha (0.591 km2), or 7.26% of the park. The overall accuracy of the Phragmites map was 84.28%, with a sensitivity of 76.32% and a specificity of 91.57%. Additionally, visual interpretation of the validation ground truth dataset was performed by 10 individuals, in order to compare their performance to that of the target detection algorithm. The overall accuracy of the visual interpretation was lower than the target detection (i.e., 69.18%, with a sensitivity of 59.21% and a specificity of 78.31%). Overall, this study is one of the first to utilize airborne HSI and target detection to map the extent of Phragmites over a moderately large extent. The uses and limitations of such an approach are established, and the methodology described here in detail could be adapted for future remote sensing studies of Phragmites or other vegetation species, native or invasive, at study sites around the world.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".