The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
UAV data as alternative to field sampling to map woody invasive species based on combined Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data
Abstract
Abstract Invasive plant species can pose major threats to biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and services. Satellite based remote sensing has evolved as an important technology to spatially map the occurrence of invasive species in space and time. With the new era of the Sentinel missions, Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and multispectral data are now freely available and repeatedly acquired on a high spatial and temporal resolution for the entire globe. However, the high potential of such sensors for automatic mapping procedures cannot be fully harnessed without sufficient and appropriate reference data for model calibration. Reference data are commonly acquired in field surveys, which however, are often relatively expensive and affected by sampling and observer bias. Moreover, a direct transferability to the remote sensing perspective and scale is difficult. Accordingly, we firstly assess the potential of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) for semi-automatic reference data acquisition on species cover of three woody invasive species Pinus radiata, Ulex europaeus and Acacia dealbata occurring in Chile. Secondly, we test the upscaling of the estimated species cover to the spatial scale of Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2. The proposed workflow includes the visual sampling of respective canopies in UAV orthomosaics and the subsequent spatial extrapolations using MaxEnt with spectral (RGB, Hyperspectral), textural (2D) and canopy structural (3D) predictors derived from UAV-based photogrammetry. These UAV-based maps are then used to train random forest models with multitemporal Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data to map the invasive species cover on large spatial scales. Our results show that the semi-automatic UAV-based mapping of the three invasive species results in accurate predictions. Depending on the predictor combination, the correlation was 0.70, 0.77 and 0.90 for Pinus radiatia, Ulex europaeus, Acacia dealbata, respectively. Among the three species, we observed clear differences in the model performance between the tested photogrammetric predictors and their combinations (spectral, 2D texture or 3D structure). For scaling up the UAV-based estimates to the satellite-scale, the Sentinel-2 data (multispectral) were more important than Sentinel-1 data (SAR). An independent validation revealed that the R2 of the upscaling accounted for 0.78 or higher for all species and RMSE lower than 12%. Our results hence demonstrate that UAV-based reference data acquisitions are a promising alternative to traditional field surveys if the target species are directly identifiable in the UAV data.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P., & Schapire, R. E. (2006) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026 · Cited by 15,396
World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated
Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B., & Rubel, F. (2006) · Meteorologische Zeitschrift · doi:10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130 · Cited by 11,456
A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists
Elith, J., Phillips, S. J., Hastie, T., Dudík, M., Chee, Y. E., & Yates, C. J. (2011) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00725.x · Cited by 6,699
BIOTIC INVASIONS: CAUSES, EPIDEMIOLOGY, GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES, AND CONTROL
Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Mark Lonsdale, W., Evans, H., Clout, M., & Bazzaz, F. A. (2000) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0689:bicegc]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 6,156
Statistical and structural approaches to texture
Haralick, R. M. (1979) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/proc.1979.11328 · Cited by 5,759
Impacts of biological invasions: what's what and the way forward
Simberloff, D., Martin, J.-L., Genovesi, P., Maris, V., Wardle, D. A., Aronson, J., Courchamp, F., Galil, B., García-Berthou, E., Pascal, M., et al. (2013) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.07.013 · Cited by 3,344
Unmanned aerial systems for photogrammetry and remote sensing: A review
Colomina, I., & Molina, P. (2014) · ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.02.013 · Cited by 2,954
Global Biodiversity Conservation Priorities
Brooks, T. M., Mittermeier, R. A., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Gerlach, J., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J. F., Mittermeier, C. G., Pilgrim, J. D., & Rodrigues, A. S. L. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1127609 · Cited by 2,396
Metadata
- Authors
- Kattenborn, T., Lopatin, J., Förster, M., Braun, A. C., & Fassnacht, F. E.
- Venue
- Remote Sensing of Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-06
- Volume
- 227
- Pages
- 61-73
- ISSN
- 0034-4257 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2939104056
- Cited by
- 258
- References
- 60
- FWCI
- 15.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: UAV data as alternative to field sampling to map woody invasive species based on combined Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.rse.2019.03.025
- The paper
- Kattenborn, T., Lopatin, J., Förster, M., Braun, A. C., & Fassnacht, F. E. (2019). UAV data as alternative to field sampling to map woody invasive species based on combined Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data. Remote Sensing of Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.03.025
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.