Submitted:
26 May 2024
Posted:
05 June 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Field Data Collection
2.3. Remote Sensing Data Acquisition
2.4. Horizontal Interpretation
- Develop training samples based on a predetermined image classification plan. This includes categories such as old mangroves, middle-aged mangroves, young mangroves, non-mangrove areas, water bodies, and open land.
- Perform segmentation on the high-resolution UAV images to prepare them for detailed classification. This step breaks down the large images into manageable segments that highlight distinct features necessary for accurate classification.
- Use the SVM classifier to categorize the segmented images based on the training samples. For each class, input a set number of 1000 samples to ensure robustness in the classification results and input the segmented image into the SVM classifier to begin the classification process.
2.5. Vertical Interpretation Using Height Tree
- Acquire DSM and DTM from UAV-derived imagery: The DSM captures the earth's surface including all objects on it, while the DTM processed through Pixel Editor in ArcGIS Pro represents the bare earth.
- Subtract the DTM from the DSM: This step isolates the height of objects above the ground, primarily focusing on tree heights. The subtraction method aids in estimating tree height, canopy size, and biomass growth, crucial for various ecological assessments.
- Classify the resulting data into height categories: The data is categorized into five height ranges: 0 – 5m, >5 - 15m, >15 - 25m, >25 - 35m, and >35 - 40.56m. These categories facilitate understanding different forest layers or vegetation densities.
2.6. Combine Horizontal and Vertical Interpretation

3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Horizontal Interpretation Using Support Vector Machine
3.2. Vertical Interpretation Using Height Tree (DSM as Real High)
3.3. Combine Interpretation Using SVM and Height Tree (DSM – DTM)
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Malik, A.; Jalil, A.; Arifuddin, A.; Syahmuddin, A. Biomass Carbon Stocks in the Mangrove Rehabilitated Area of Sinjai District, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Geogr. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 13, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Petris, S.; Berretti, R.; Sarvia, F.; Borgogno Mondino, E. When a Definition Makes the Difference: Operative Issues about Tree Height Measures from RPAS-Derived CHMs. iForest-Biogeosciences For. 2020, 13, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jurjević, L.; Liang, X.; Gašparović, M.; Balenović, I. Is Field-Measured Tree Height as Reliable as Believed–Part II, A Comparison Study of Tree Height Estimates from Conventional Field Measurement and Low-Cost Close-Range Remote Sensing in a Deciduous Forest. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2020, 169, 227–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ganz, S.; Käber, Y.; Adler, P. Measuring Tree Height with Remote Sensing—A Comparison of Photogrammetric and LiDAR Data with Different Field Measurements. Forests 2019, 10, 694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camarretta, N.; Harrison, P.A.; Bailey, T.; Potts, B.; Lucieer, A.; Davidson, N.; Hunt, M. Monitoring Forest Structure to Guide Adaptive Management of Forest Restoration: A Review of Remote Sensing Approaches. New For. 2020, 51, 573–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, P.C.; Cheng, G.; Yao, X.W.; Han, J.W. Machine Learning Paradigms in High-Resolution Remote Sensing Image Interpretation. Natl. Remote Sens. Bull. 2021, 25, 182–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, G.; Rong, X.; Zhang, A.; Huang, H.; Rong, J.; Zhang, X. Multi-Scale Mahalanobis Kernel-Based Support Vector Machine for Classification of High-Resolution Remote Sensing Images. Cognit. Comput. 2021, 13, 787–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mielcarek, M.; Kamińska, A.; Stereńczak, K. Digital Aerial Photogrammetry (DAP) and Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) as Sources of Information about Tree Height: Comparisons of the Accuracy of Remote Sensing Methods for Tree Height Estimation. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amroune, M.; El-Keyi, A.; Lagum, F.; Yanıkömeroğlu, H. 3-D Placement of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Base Station (UAV-BS) for Energy-Efficient Maximal Coverage. Ieee Wirel. Commun. Lett. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Q.; Xu, J.; Zhang, R. Capacity Characterization of UAV-Enabled Two-User Broadcast Channel. Ieee J. Sel. Areas Commun. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krasuski, K.; Wierzbicki, D.; Bakuła, M. Improvement of UAV Positioning Performance Based on EGNOS+SDCM Solution. Remote Sens. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ćwiąkała, P.; Gruszczyński, W.; Stoch, T.; Puniach, E.; Mrocheń, D.; Matwij, W.; Matwij, K.; Nędzka, M.; Sopata, P.; Wójcik, A. UAV Applications for Determination of Land Deformations Caused by Underground Mining. Remote Sens. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomaštík, J.; Mokroš, M.; Surový, P.; Grznárová, A.; Merganič, J. UAV RTK/PPK Method—An Optimal Solution for Mapping Inaccessible Forested Areas? Remote Sens. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Yang, J.; Li, S.Q.; Jin, B.; Han, W.T.; Yang, X.; Gai, L.; Ritsema, C.J.; Geissen, V. Quality of Terrestrial Data Derived From UAV Photogrammetry: A Case Study of Hetao Irrigation District in Northern China. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jo, Y.H.; Kim, J.Y. Three-Dimensional Digital Documentation of Heritage Sites Using Terrestrial Laser Scanning And Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Photogrammetry. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azim, S.; Rasmussen, J.; Nielsen, J.; Gislum, R.; Laursen, M.S.; Christensen, S. Manual Geo-Rectification to Improve the Spatial Accuracy of Ortho-Mosaics Based on Images from Consumer-Grade Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Precis. Agric. 2019, 20, 1199–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stott, E.; Williams, R.D.; Hoey, T.B. Ground Control Point Distribution for Accurate Kilometre-Scale Topographic Mapping Using an RTK-GNSS Unmanned Aerial Vehicle and SfM Photogrammetry. Drones 2020, 4, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanz-Ablanedo, E.; Chandler, J.H.; Rodríguez-Pérez, J.R.; Ordóñez, C. Accuracy of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and SfM Photogrammetry Survey as a Function of the Number and Location of Ground Control Points Used. Remote Sens. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Štroner, M.; Urban, R.; Reindl, T.; Seidl, J.; Brouček, J. Evaluation of the Georeferencing Accuracy of a Photogrammetric Model Using a Quadrocopter With Onboard GNSS RTK. Sensors 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taddia, Y.; González-García, L.; Zambello, E.; Pellegrinelli, A. Quality Assessment of Photogrammetric Models for Façade and Building Reconstruction Using DJI Phantom 4 RTK. Remote Sens. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peppa, M. V; Hall, J.R.; Goodyear, J.; Mills, J.P. Photogrammetric Assessment and Comparison of Dji Phantom 4 Pro and Phantom 4 RTK Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canh, L. V; Cuong, C.X.; Long, N.Q.; Ha, L.T.T.; Anh, T.T.; Bui, X.-N. Experimental Investigation on the Performance of DJI Phantom 4 RTK in the PPK Mode for 3D Mapping Open-Pit Mines. Inżynieria Miner. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forlani, G.; Diotri, F.; Cella, U.M. d.; Roncella, R. Uav Block Georeferencing and Control by On-Board GNSS Data. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Štroner, M.; Urban, R.; Seidl, J.; Reindl, T.; Brouček, J. Photogrammetry Using UAV-Mounted GNSS RTK: Georeferencing Strategies Without GCPs. Remote Sens. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Losè, L.T.; Chiabrando, F.; Tonolo, F.G. Boosting the Timeliness of UAV Large Scale Mapping. Direct Georeferencing Approaches: Operational Strategies and Best Practices. Isprs Int. J. Geo-Information, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belloni, V.; Fugazza, D.; Rita, M.D. Uav-Based Glacier Monitoring: GNSS Kinematic Track Post-Processing and Direct Georeferencing for Accurate Reconstructions in Challenging Environments. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekaso, D.; Nex, F.; Kerle, N. Accuracy Assessment of Real-Time Kinematics (RTK) Measurements on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) for Direct Geo-Referencing. Geo-Spatial Inf. Sci. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taddia, Y.; Stecchi, F.; Pellegrinelli, A. Using Dji Phantom 4 RTK Drone for Topographic Mapping of Coastal Areas. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Z.; Aldana-Jague, E.; Clapuyt, F.; Wilken, F.; Vanacker, V.; Oost, K. V Evaluating the Potential of Post-Processing Kinematic (PPK) Georeferencing for UAV-Based Structure- From-Motion (SfM) Photogrammetry and Surface Change Detection. Earth Surf. Dyn. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marzialetti, F.; Frate, L.; Simone, W.D.; Frattaroli, A.R.; Acosta, A.T.R.; Carranza, M.L. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)-Based Mapping of Acacia Saligna Invasion in the Mediterranean Coast. Remote Sens. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Najjar, H.A.H.; Kalantar, B.; Pradhan, B.; Saeidi, V.; Halin, A.A.; Ueda, N.; Mansor, S. Land Cover Classification From Fused DSM and UAV Images Using Convolutional Neural Networks. Remote Sens. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fabbri, S.; Grottoli, E.; Armaroli, C.; Ciavola, P. Using High-Spatial Resolution UAV-Derived Data to Evaluate Vegetation and Geomorphological Changes on a Dune Field Involved in a Restoration Endeavour. Remote Sens. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lendzioch, T.; Langhammer, J.; Jenicek, M. Estimating Snow Depth and Leaf Area Index Based on UAV Digital Photogrammetry. Sensors 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Y.; Ding, Z.; Xue, F.; Rong, X. An Improved Twin Support Vector Machine Based on Multi-Objective Cuckoo Search for Software Defect Prediction. Int. J. Bio-Inspired Comput. 2018, 11, 282–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heenkenda, M.K.; Joyce, K.E.; Maier, S.W.; Bartolo, R. Mangrove Species Identification: Comparing WorldView-2 with Aerial Photographs. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 6064–6088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Yan, M.; Qi, J.; Fu, T.; Fan, S.; Chen, B. High-Resolution Mangrove Forests Classification with Machine Learning Using Worldview and UAV Hyperspectral Data. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Wan, B.; Qiu, P.; Su, Y.; Guo, Q.; Wu, X. Artificial Mangrove Species Mapping Using Pléiades-1: An Evaluation of Pixel-Based and Object-Based Classifications With Selected Machine Learning Algorithms. Remote Sens. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faghihi, R.; Faridafshin, M.; Movafeghi, A. Patch-Based Weld Defect Segmentation and Classification Using Anisotropic Diffusion Image Enhancement Combined with Support-Vector Machine. Russ. J. Nondestruct. Test. 2021, 57, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, J.; Leng, W.; Liu, K.; Liu, L.; He, Z.; Zhu, Y. Object-Based Mangrove Species Classification Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Hyperspectral Images and Digital Surface Models. Remote Sens. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quang, N.H.; Quinn, C.H.; Stringer, L.C.; Carrie, R.; Hackney, C.R.; Van Hue, L.T.; Van Tan, D.; Nga, P.T.T. Multi-Decadal Changes in Mangrove Extent, Age and Species in the Red River Estuaries of Viet Nam. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soffianian, A.; Toosi, N.B.; Asgarian, A.; Regnauld, H.; Fakheran, S.; Waser, L.T. Evaluating Resampled and Fused Sentinel-2 Data and Machine-Learning Algorithms for Mangrove Mapping in the Northern Coast of Qeshm Island, Iran. Nat. Conserv. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Z.; Huang, M.; Zhou, Z.; Chen, G.; Zhu, X. Stronger Conservation Promotes Mangrove Biomass Accumulation: Insights From Spatially Explicit Assessments Using <scp>UAV</Scp> and Landsat Data. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beselly, S.M.; Wegen, M. v. d.; Grueters, U.; Reyns, J.; Dijkstra, J.; Roelvink, D. Eleven Years of Mangrove–Mudflat Dynamics on the Mud Volcano-Induced Prograding Delta in East Java, Indonesia: Integrating UAV and Satellite Imagery. Remote Sens. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sugiatmo, S.; Poedjirahajoe, E.; Pudyatmoko, S.; Purwanto, R.H. Carbon Stock at Several Types of Mangrove Ecosystems in Bregasmalang, Central Java, Indonesia. Biodiversitas J. Biol. Divers. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aye, W.N.; Tong, X.; Tun, A.W. Species Diversity, Biomass and Carbon Stock Assessment of Kanhlyashay Natural Mangrove Forest. Forests 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]






| Number | Horizontal Classification | Area (hectares) | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Old Mangrove | 35.432 | 62.94 |
| 2 | Young Mangrove | 1.381 | 2.45 |
| 3 | Middle Mangrove | 15.538 | 27.60 |
| 4 | Non-Mangrove | 1.206 | 2.14 |
| 5 | Open Land | 0.448 | 0.80 |
| 6 | Water | 2.293 | 4.07 |
| Grand Total (hectares) | 56.297 | ||
| Number | Vertical Classification | Area (hectares) | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 - 5 m | 2.744 | 4.87 |
| 2 | >5 - 15 m | 0.125 | 0.22 |
| 3 | >15 - 25 m | 7.480 | 13.29 |
| 4 | >25 - 35 m | 38.284 | 68.00 |
| 5 | >35 - 40.56 m | 7.663 | 13.61 |
| Grand Total (hectares) | 56.297 | ||
| Number | Vertical-Horizontal Class | Area (hectares) | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Old Mangrove, Elevation >35 - 40.56 m | 7.606 | 13.51 |
| 2 | Old Mangrove, Elevation >25 - 35 m | 24.436 | 43.40 |
| 3 | Old Mangrove, Elevation >15 - 25 m | 3.390 | 6.02 |
| 4 | Middle Mangrove, Elevation >15 - 25 m | 2.194 | 3.90 |
| 5 | Middle Mangrove, Elevation >25 - 35 m | 13.241 | 23.52 |
| 6 | Middle Mangrove, Elevation >5 - 15 m | 0.102 | 0.18 |
| 7 | Young Mangrove, Elevation >15 - 25 m | 1.368 | 2.43 |
| 8 | Young Mangrove, Elevation >5 - 15 m | 0.010 | 0.02 |
| 9 | Young Mangrove, Elevation 0 - 5 m | 0.003 | 0.01 |
| 10 | Non-Mangrove, Elevation >15 - 25 m | 0.528 | 0.94 |
| 11 | Non-Mangrove, Elevation >25 - 35 m | 0.607 | 1.08 |
| 12 | Non- Mangrove, Elevation >35 - 40.56 m | 0.057 | 0.10 |
| 13 | Non- Mangrove, Elevation >5 - 15 m | 0.013 | 0.02 |
| 14 | Non- Mangrove, Elevation 0 - 5 m | 0.0004 | 0.001 |
| 15 | Open Land, Elevation 0 - 5 m | 0.448 | 0.80 |
| 16 | Water, Elevation 0 - 5 m | 2.293 | 4.07 |
| Grand Total (hectares) | 56.297 | ||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).