Biological Valuation Map of Flanders: A Sentinel-2 Imagery Analysis
Authors:
Mingshi Li,
Dusan Grujicic,
Steven De Saeger,
Stien Heremans,
Ben Somers,
Matthew B. Blaschko
Abstract:
In recent years, machine learning has become crucial in remote sensing analysis, particularly in the domain of Land-use/Land-cover (LULC). The synergy of machine learning and satellite imagery analysis has demonstrated significant productivity in this field, as evidenced by several studies. A notable challenge within this area is the semantic segmentation map** of land usage over extensive terri…
▽ More
In recent years, machine learning has become crucial in remote sensing analysis, particularly in the domain of Land-use/Land-cover (LULC). The synergy of machine learning and satellite imagery analysis has demonstrated significant productivity in this field, as evidenced by several studies. A notable challenge within this area is the semantic segmentation map** of land usage over extensive territories, where the accessibility of accurate land-use data and the reliability of ground truth land-use labels pose significant difficulties. For example, providing a detailed and accurate pixel-wise labeled dataset of the Flanders region, a first-level administrative division of Belgium, can be particularly insightful. Yet there is a notable lack of regulated, formalized datasets and workflows for such studies in many regions globally. This paper introduces a comprehensive approach to addressing these gaps. We present a densely labeled ground truth map of Flanders paired with Sentinel-2 satellite imagery. Our methodology includes a formalized dataset division and sampling method, utilizing the topographic map layout 'Kaartbladversnijdingen,' and a detailed semantic segmentation model training pipeline. Preliminary benchmarking results are also provided to demonstrate the efficacy of our approach.
△ Less
Submitted 26 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
Assessing the effect of sample bias correction in species distribution models
Authors:
Nicolas Dubos,
Clémentine Préau,
Maxime Lenormand,
Guillaume Papuga,
Sophie Montsarrat,
Pierre Denelle,
Marine Le Louarn,
Stien Heremans,
May Roel,
Philip Roche,
Sandra Luque
Abstract:
Open-source biodiversity databases contain a large amount of species occurrence records, but these are often spatially biased, which affects the reliability of species distribution models based on these records. Sample bias correction techniques include data filtering at the cost of record numbers or require considerable additional sampling effort. However, independent data are rarely available an…
▽ More
Open-source biodiversity databases contain a large amount of species occurrence records, but these are often spatially biased, which affects the reliability of species distribution models based on these records. Sample bias correction techniques include data filtering at the cost of record numbers or require considerable additional sampling effort. However, independent data are rarely available and assessment of the correction technique must rely on performance metrics computed with subsets of the only available (biased) data, which may be misleading. Here we assess the extent to which an acknowledged sample bias correction technique is likely to improve models' ability to predict species distributions in the absence of independent data. We assessed the variation in model predictions induced by the correction and model stochasticity. We present an index of the effect of correction relative to model stochasticity, the Relative Overlap Index (ROI). We tested whether the ROI better represented the effect of correction than classic performance metrics and absolute overlap metrics using 64 vertebrate species and 21 virtual species with a generated sample bias. When based on absolute overlaps and cross-validation performance metrics, we found no effect of correction, except for cAUC. When considering its effect relative to model stochasticity, the effect of correction depended on the site and the species. Virtual species enabled us to verify that the correction actually improved distribution predictions and the biological relevance of the selected variables at the sites with a clear gradient of sample bias, and when species distribution predictors are not correlated with sample bias patterns.
△ Less
Submitted 27 October, 2022; v1 submitted 12 March, 2021;
originally announced March 2021.
