2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101768
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

UAV-based classification of maritime Antarctic vegetation types using GEOBIA and random forest

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 80 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The advancements and challenges associated with Antarctic vegetation mapping are reflected in recent research, which highlights the innovative use of UAVs and ML techniques to differentiate and assess vegetation health. This work contributes to the growing body of knowledge that supports the use of UAVs, MSI and HSI data, and ML in ecological monitoring and extends the application of these techniques to the unique and challenging environment of the Antarctic [19,68]. However, these studies, including those by Turner et al [24,27,28], Bollard-Breen et al [23], Váczi and Barták [69], and King et al [17], tend to focus on the technology's potential rather than its systematic application.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…The advancements and challenges associated with Antarctic vegetation mapping are reflected in recent research, which highlights the innovative use of UAVs and ML techniques to differentiate and assess vegetation health. This work contributes to the growing body of knowledge that supports the use of UAVs, MSI and HSI data, and ML in ecological monitoring and extends the application of these techniques to the unique and challenging environment of the Antarctic [19,68]. However, these studies, including those by Turner et al [24,27,28], Bollard-Breen et al [23], Váczi and Barták [69], and King et al [17], tend to focus on the technology's potential rather than its systematic application.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Eischeid et al had an F1-score of 85% for the Random Forest (RF) algorithms used for disturbance mapping on tundra vegetation in the Artic [ 64 ]. Likewise, Sotille et al used an RF classifier on Antarctic vegetation and got an accuracy of 96.6% [ 65 ]. This supports the findings of Sotille et al and Turner et al as more ground truth data would have allowed the RF model to be more transferable to new data [ 66 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%