Zhang R P, Zhou J H, Guo J, Miao Y H, Zhang L L
College of Ecology and Environment, Xinjiang University, Urumqi, China.
Key Laboratory of Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang University, Urumqi, China.
Front Plant Sci. 2023 Mar 13;14:1152432. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1152432. eCollection 2023.
Grassland biomass monitoring is essential for assessing grassland health and carbon cycling. However, monitoring grassland biomass in drylands based on satellite remote sensing is challenging.Statistical regression models and machine learning have been used for the construction of grassland biomass models, but the predictive power for different grassland types is unclear. Additionally, the selection of the most appropriate variables to construct a biomass inversion model for different grassland types must be explored. Therefore,1201 ground-truthed data points collected from 2014-2021,including 15 Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) vegetation indices,geographic location and topographic data,and meteorological factors and vegetation biophysical indicators were screened for key variables using principal component analysis (PCA). The accuracy of multiple linear regression models, exponential regression models, power function models, support vector machine (SVM) models, random forest (RF) models, and neural network models was evaluated for the inversion of three types of grassland biomass. The results were as follows: (1) The biomass inversion accuracy of single vegetation indices was low, and the optimal vegetation indices were the soil-adjusted vegetation index (SAVI) (R2 = 0.255), normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) (R2 = 0.372) and optimized soil-adjusted vegetation index (OSAVI) (R2 = 0.285). (2)Grassland above-ground biomass (AGB) was affected by various factors such as geographic location,topography, and meteorological factors, and the inverse models using a single environmental variable had large errors. (3) The main variables used to model biomass in the three types of grasslands were different. SAVI, aspect, slope, and precipitation (Prec.) were selected for desert grasslands; NDVI,shortwave infrared 2 (SWI2), longitude, mean temperature, and annual precipitation were selected for steppe;and OSAVI, phytochrome ratio (PPR), longitude, precipitation, and temperature were selected for meadows. (4) The non-parametric meadow biomass model was superior to the statistical regression model. (5) The RF model was the best model for the inversion of grassland biomass in Xinjiang, and this model had the highest accuracy for grassland biomass inversion (R2 = 0.656, root mean square error (RMSE) = 815.6 kg/ha),followed by meadow (R2 = 0.610, RMSE = 547.9 kg/ha) and desert grassland (R2 = 0.441, RMSE = 353.6 kg/ha).
草地生物量监测对于评估草地健康状况和碳循环至关重要。然而,基于卫星遥感监测干旱地区的草地生物量具有挑战性。统计回归模型和机器学习已被用于构建草地生物量模型,但不同草地类型的预测能力尚不清楚。此外,必须探索为不同草地类型构建生物量反演模型时最合适变量的选择。因此,利用主成分分析(PCA)从2014年至2021年收集的1201个地面实测数据点中筛选关键变量,这些数据点包括15个中分辨率成像光谱仪(MODIS)植被指数、地理位置和地形数据以及气象因素和植被生物物理指标。评估了多元线性回归模型、指数回归模型、幂函数模型、支持向量机(SVM)模型、随机森林(RF)模型和神经网络模型对三种草地生物量反演的准确性。结果如下:(1)单植被指数的生物量反演精度较低,最优植被指数为土壤调节植被指数(SAVI)(R2 = 0.255)、归一化差异植被指数(NDVI)(R2 = 0.372)和优化土壤调节植被指数(OSAVI)(R2 = 0.285)。(2)草地地上生物量(AGB)受地理位置、地形和气象因素等多种因素影响,使用单一环境变量的反演模型误差较大。(3)三种草地用于建模生物量的主要变量不同。荒漠草地选择SAVI、坡向、坡度和降水量(Prec.);草原选择NDVI、短波红外2(SWI2)、经度、平均温度和年降水量;草甸选择OSAVI、光敏色素比率(PPR)、经度、降水量和温度。(4)非参数草甸生物量模型优于统计回归模型。(5)RF模型是新疆草地生物量反演的最佳模型,该模型对草地生物量反演的精度最高(R2 = 0.656,均方根误差(RMSE) = 815.6 kg/ha),其次是草甸(R2 = 0.610,RMSE = 547.9 kg/ha)和荒漠草地(R2 = 0.441,RMSE = 353.6 kg/ha)。