MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414119930 · doi:10.1016/j.jag.2025.104831

Early Deforestation Detection in the Tropics using L-band SAR and Optical multi-sensor data and Bayesian Statistics

2025· article· en· W4414119930 on OpenAlexafffund
Africa I. Flores-Anderson, Jeffrey A. Cardille, Josef Kellndorfer, Franz J. Meyer, Pontus Olofsson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsSte. Anne's HospitalMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJapan Aerospace Exploration AgencyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarChange detectionDeforestation (computer science)Bayesian probabilityLagSatelliteRadarClimate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growing availability of medium-resolution optical and radar satellite observations has prompted the development of synergistic change detection methodologies. Timely forest change detection, particularly early deforestation, is crucial for preventing illegal activities. This study proposes and evaluates an innovative model that integrates ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 L-band data with optical data from Landsat and Sentinel-2 to detect early deforestation, defined as the initial transition from stable to logged forest. Our model employs a 2-tier approach, combining harmonic curve fitting and z-scores to calculate differences between the time series. Bayesian updating statistics are then used to derive change probabilities. We comprehensively assessed the spatial and temporal detection accuracy of early deforestation maps generated by each sensor type, both individually and in combination. The integrated L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and optical method demonstrated the best performance, achieving a user’s accuracy of 99.19 ± 0.0081% ( ± 95 confidence interval) and a mean detection time lag of just 16 days. For comparison, L-band SAR data alone yielded a user’s accuracy of 93.70% ( ± 0.0333) with a mean time lag of 67 days, primarily due to ALOS-2’s lower repeat frequency. Optical-derived detections achieved a user’s accuracy of 98.39% ( ± 0.0113) and a mean time lag of 20 days. These findings confirm that combining radar and optical datasets significantly improves both detection accuracy and timeliness. Furthermore, detections were consistently captured shortly after logging activities, well before subsequent forest disturbances, underscoring true early deforestation. The high detection accuracies validate that both individual and combined L-band SAR and optical data can reliably detect early deforestation in this tropical region. We anticipate that the longer detection time lags observed with ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 will substantially improve with upcoming L-band SAR missions, such as NISAR and ALOS-4 PALSAR-3, which promise significantly enhanced global temporal sampling. • L-band RFDI time series using harmonic fitting and the Bayesian Updating of Land Cover algorithm generates a highly accurate early deforestation map in a tropical area with a user’s accuracy of 93.70%. • An integrated multi-sensor L-band SAR and optical (Landsat and Sentinel- 2) change detection system produces better spatial and temporal detection results (commission error of 0.81%, and all detections within a time window that represents early deforestation), than change maps created by individual sensor types. • Adding L-band SAR data reduces the mean time lag of early deforestation detection from 20 days, using only optical data, to 16 days if all sensor types are combined.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Applied Earth Observation and GeoinformationSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207