the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Drone-based multispectral differentiation of subalpine vegetation at the treeline in the Southern Alps of New Zealand
Abstract. Subalpine ecosystems are highly dynamic environments that are particularly vulnerable to environmental change, yet their remote and rugged nature poses challenges for long-term monitoring. Unoccupied aerial vehicles (UAVs) equipped with multispectral sensors offer a scalable solution for high-resolution vegetation mapping in these landscapes. In this study, we integrated UAV-derived spectral data with machine learning (ML) classifiers to assess the effectiveness of different vegetation indices (VIs) in distinguishing subalpine plant communities. Principal component analysis (PCA) revealed that NDVI, SIPI2, MCARI, and CHL were highly correlated and strongly influenced the primary variance in the dataset, while NDRE and LCI contributed more evenly across principal components, and GNDVI was largely independent. Among the ML classifiers tested, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) achieved the greatest overall accuracy (81.3 %) and Kappa (0.75), outperforming support vector machines (SVM) and random forest (RF). Classification confidence was highest for Chionochloa tussock (64.6–69.7 %) and Dracophyllum scrub (70.6 %), suggesting moderate reliability for these dominant vegetation types. Scrub and prostrate mat-forming communities exhibited lower classification accuracy, likely due to their heterogeneous canopy structure and greater spectral variability. The ecological boundaries of the subalpine zone, formed by Fuscospora forest and scree, were classified with high confidence, but the vegetation is dominated by tussock and shrubland. Feature importance analysis ranked NDVI, SIPI2, CHL, and MCARI highly in SVM and RF models, whereas LCI prevailed in XGBoost, underscoring how different algorithms leverage spectral information in classification tasks. These results emphasize the role of vegetation structure in classification accuracy, with dense, spectrally homogeneous vegetation types more reliably distinguished than mixed-species communities. Our study highlights UAV-based classification as a valuable tool for landscape-scale monitoring of subalpine vegetation. As UAV applications and ML workflows continue to evolve, optimizing classification approaches will enhance our ability to track ecological changes in subalpine and alpine regions worldwide.
- Preprint
(1345 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 02 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-926', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Apr 2025
reply
Dear Döweler and Bader,
Thank you for your submission. Your study presents an interesting approach that will likely contribute to the scientific community by demonstrating the effectiveness of combining UAV-derived multispectral data with different machine learning classifiers for vegetation mapping.
However, several important revisions are necessary before publication. Below, I outline some general comments followed by more specific suggestions.Scientific contribution issue: Your work builds upon an existing dataset recently published, with the only modification being the spectral data employed in the analysis. Although this is not inherently problematic, as a study focused on methodology, it is expected that some innovative aspect be clearly presented. The methodological contribution appears limited, as it does not introduce substantial novelty.
Scale of analysis: While you provide evidence that the applied methodology is effective at the study site, one of the key advantages of remote sensing is its capability to analyze vast spatial extents. In this work, however, the spatial extent is limited (4 hectares), which makes the term “landscape” analysis somewhat debatable. I suggest either expanding the analysis within the same site or incorporating data from additional sites to improve the study’s relevance and achieve a true landscape-scale analysis.
If such an expansion is not feasible, I recommend incorporating ecological analyses to assign a more specific aim to your work. For instance, as mentioned on line 434, the output of the machine learning classifiers could be used to monitor and track ecological shifts. Alternatively, as noted in lines 419 to 421, combining vegetation indices with the trained classifiers to investigate the effects of specific abiotic stressors on subalpine vegetation could also provide significant added value. Including an analysis along these lines would enhance the value and appeal of your study, by providing the audience with a concrete example of how the proposed methodology can be applied to address well-known ecological issues and tasks.Model evaluation: Additional concerns pertain to the evaluation of your models. The manuscript does not clearly explain how the data were partitioned into training, validation, and testing sets. It appears that 80% of the data were used for training and 20% for testing, but how the validation process was performed during model training remains unspecified. More detailed and straightforward information regarding the cross-validation procedure is needed to ensure reproducibility. Lastly, the discussion section cites only a limited number of relevant studies employing XGBoost, SVM, and RF for similar tasks. A more comprehensive comparison with previous applications in analogous contexts would strengthen your results and findings.
Manuscript template: Please also ensure that your manuscript adheres to the Biogeosciences publication template. The current preprint does not follow the required formatting guidelines—this includes aspects such as title, main text, chapter and subchapter fonts, spacing between paragraphs, figure and table titles and descriptions, and the reference format (Copernicus Publication style).
Additional suggestions:
Introduction: include a dedicated paragraph providing a brief explanation of the machine learning classifier mentioned at line 133 to give readers essential context.Conclusions: The current conclusions are not directly connected to the analyses conducted in the paper. Instead, they focus on reiterating well-known facts already mentioned in the introduction and discussion sections that do not need further discussion. It would be more effective to succinctly summarize the main findings, offering valuable insights into the topic, highlight any key limitations of the applied methodology, clearly emphasize the study’s contribution to the scientific community, and propose perspectives and suggestions for future research.
Please find below more specific comments and revisions:
L 34-35: “likely due to their heterogeneous canopy structure and greater spectral variability”. This fact is reported several times throughout the paper but there is a lack of citations supporting this hypothesis. Please cite other studies underscoring the issue if possible.
L 40: “These results emphasize the role of vegetation structure in classification accuracy“
This is not correct. Your results emphasize the role of the analyzed VIs in classification accuracy. The role of vegetation structure was not explicitly tested and remains an assumption made by the authors. The correlation between vegetation structure and classification accuracy was not investigated in this study. If this assumption is based on findings from other research, please cite those studies and clarify that your classification results could potentially be influenced by vegetation structure.L 42-43: “Our study highlights UAV-based classification as a valuable tool for landscape-scale monitoring of subalpine vegetation”. This sentence must be changed. This study highlights UAV-based classification as a valuable tool for landscape-scale mapping of subalpine vegetation. Which can later on be used to monitor subalpine vegetation over time. However, since no monitoring was performed in the present paper and there is no evidence it can be done effectively, please modify this statement.
Furthermore, your study area consists of a surface of 4 hectares, which is a quite limited extent to be referred to as a “landscape-scale” analysis. A 200m x 200m surface is most probably not representative of the heterogeneity of the landscape in which it is located. Hence, I would rather refer to this analysis with the term “local-scale”.L 79-88: This paragraph looks much like a site description especially if presented along with a figure (Figure 1). As such, both the paragraph and figure could probably fit better in chapter 2.1 (study site).
L 91: “1365 m a above sea level, Craigieburn Valley, Arthurs Pass” remove “a”
L 96: “…but potentially significant shifts in over time” remove “in”
L 97: “inaccessible” modify with “hard to access” or something similar, it is not completely impossible to access the areas.
L 107-109: please add citations of works performing such analyses
L 109-110: “As climate change increasingly affects alpine and subalpine ecosystems” Fact already mentioned before, stick to the remote sensing topic.
L 117: Please provide more citations
L 118-121: Please provide more citations
L 121-124: Complex sentence, please simplify for an easier and smoother reading
L 123: add “zone” or “area” after subalpine
Chapter 2.1: Provide a picture which gives a more detailed overview of the study site and its features.
i.e. the 4 ha orthomosaic of the study site with a zoom-in of a relevant area in an inset.
At the moment the reader does not have a clear idea of the context in which the analysis was performed, the heterogeneity of the topography, vegetation, slope etc.Figure 2.1: Try changing compass color to white and remove background color
L 165: remove repetition “we”
L 238: increase font size of column “reference” in the table
L 252-254: not necessary. This is a basic description of the PCA which is also explained throughout next chapters.
L 258: how the training, validation, and test dataset were generated has to be better explained. It is not clear whether 20% of the dataset was used to validate the performances during the training process, or if it was actually an independent test dataset. Please clarify.
L 315: “The vegetation indices were scaled prior to PCA“. Please specify how they were scaled for reproducibility
L 374: The citations provided are not sound with the analysis performed in the paper. If possible, please provide citations of more relevant paper conducted in similar contexts and on similar classes.
L 386: “suggesting that the different ML approaches rely on distinct spectral properties for classification“. Are there any other studies supporting this theory? Please cite them
L 390: please cite a paper where this operation was performed
L 401: spelling error: eliminate
L 416-418: saying “critical role of vegetation structure in classification accuracy“
This was never proven. It should be better to say “the critical role of the spectral information”. As it is also mentioned in Chapter 2.3 (L205-208) “we derived a suite of vegetation indices from the available multispectral bands to test their capability in discerning cover classes. These indices capture plant functional traits that influence productivity, stress responses, and spectral variability across different vegetation types“, vegetation structure is not directly captured by any of the VIs employed in the analysis. The effect of the structure on the classification was hypothesized, but not proved in the paper, and no reference was cited to support the hypothesis.L 419-421: In the present paper the possibility to investigate the effect that an abiotic stressor can have on subalpine vegetation thanks to a specific VI was never tested. Please provide citations of works where this type of investigation was done.
L 434: “… tracking ecological shifts”. Please provide citations of works doing this analysis.
I hope these suggestions are helpful as you revise your manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-926-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
92 | 25 | 7 | 124 | 7 | 8 |
- HTML: 92
- PDF: 25
- XML: 7
- Total: 124
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 42 | 33 |
undefined | 2 | 10 | 8 |
China | 3 | 8 | 6 |
Germany | 4 | 8 | 6 |
Italy | 5 | 7 | 5 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 42