Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38855218›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024

Applying a deep learning pipeline to classify land cover from low-quality historical RGB imagery.

Harold N Eyster, Brian Beckage

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Harold N EysterDepartment of Plant Biology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, United States of America.
Brian BeckageDepartment of Plant Biology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Land use and land cover (LULC) classification is becoming faster and more accurate thanks to new deep learning algorithms. Moreover, new high spectral- and spatial-resolution datasets offer opportunities to classify land cover with greater accuracy and class specificity. However, deploying deep learning algorithms to characterize present-day, modern land cover based on state-of-the-art data is insufficient for understanding trends in land cover change and identifying changes in and drivers of ecological and social variables of interest. These identifications require characterizing past land cover, for which imagery is often lower-quality. We applied a deep learning pipeline to classify land cover from historical, low-quality RGB aerial imagery, using a case study of Vancouver, Canada. We deployed an atrous convolutional neural network from DeepLabv3+ (which has previously shown to outperform other networks) and trained it on modern Maxar satellite imagery using a modern land cover classification. We fine-tuned the resultant model using a small dataset of manually annotated and augmented historical imagery. This final model accurately predicted historical land cover classification at rates similar to other studies that used high-quality imagery. These predictions indicate that Vancouver has lost vegetative cover from 1995-2021, including a decrease in conifer cover, an increase in pavement cover, and an overall decrease in tree and grass cover. Our workflow may be harnessed to understand historical land cover and identify land cover change in other regions and at other times.

Indexed as

Deep learningHistorical imageryLand cover changeLand cover classificationLand use changeLand use classificationLand use land coverLow quality imagesNeural networksVancouver

Identifiers

PMID38855218
PMCPMC11157591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.