MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhanced Mapping for Ecosystem Management: Evaluating the Accuracy of Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 Data Fusion Compared to Sole Sentinel-2 Using Random Forest Classification

2024· preprint· en· W4401626802 on OpenAlexaff
Sajib Sarker, Xin Wang, Abul Kalam Azad

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsWetlandRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceRandom forestEcosystemSynthetic aperture radarSatellite imageryMangrove ecosystemGeographyComputer scienceEcologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances in satellite technology have brought enormous potential to ecosystem mapping, which is one of the fundamental components of environmental studies. In this paper, a Random Forest classifier is applied for the strict assessment of the efficiency of ecosystem mapping through a detailed comparative analysis between combined Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data and stand-alone Sentinel-2 imagery over three priority ecosystems, including wetlands, riverine areas, and mangroves in Bangladesh. The collocated images, based on the integration of Sentinel-1 data with Sentinel-2 data, would do better than Sentinel-2 imagery alone over various ecosystems. Particularly, in this study, attention focused on the Hakaluki Haor area for the wetlands, the Padma-Jamuna River confluence for the riverine ecosystem, and the Sundarban forest for mangroves. By leveraging Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data in C-band dual-polarization from Sentinel-1 and four spectral bands (blue, green, red, and near-infrared) from Sentinel-2, the study analyzes imagery from December 2022 to February 2023. A 5% cloud masking filter is applied to optical data to enhance accuracy. In this methodology, 70% of the total signature values are used for training the classification model and the remaining 30% for testing. It can be noticed from the results that with the use of fused data, remarkably high accuracy in classification has been improved, such as overall accuracies of 94.17% for mangroves, 87.30% for riverine, and 85.96% for wetland ecosystems. In contrast, the use of singular Sentinel-2 imagery yields lower accuracies of 91.56%, 85.21%, and 82.51% for the respective ecosystems. The integration of radar data is shown to provide critical information, especially in environments with dense vegetation or cloud cover, where optical data alone may be insufficient. The findings of this study underline the limitations of relying on Sentinel-2 imagery to capture complex details of diverse ecosystems and highlight the need to include Sentinel-1 data for a more holistic analysis. This fusion allows improved accuracy to be achieved, which not only brings in more depth of ecological knowledge but also underpins more effective conservation strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.290
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.109 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207