Figure 1.
Location of the study area near the reservoir of Heilongtan in Shilin County, Yunnan Province, China. Four sample plots were set up in the study area with randomly selected samples from each plot for a total of 80 sample trees (sample plot 1: 23 trees, sample plot 2: 28 trees, sample plot 3: 16 trees, and sample plot 4: 13 trees).
Figure 1.
Location of the study area near the reservoir of Heilongtan in Shilin County, Yunnan Province, China. Four sample plots were set up in the study area with randomly selected samples from each plot for a total of 80 sample trees (sample plot 1: 23 trees, sample plot 2: 28 trees, sample plot 3: 16 trees, and sample plot 4: 13 trees).
Figure 2.
Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)-based hyperspectral acquisition equipment. (a) UHD S185, radiometric calibration. (b) The UAV took off and collected data.
Figure 2.
Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)-based hyperspectral acquisition equipment. (a) UHD S185, radiometric calibration. (b) The UAV took off and collected data.
Figure 3.
Preprocessing flow. (a) Image preprocessing flow. (b) RGB orthophoto image. (c) Correction hyperspectral image. (d) A local magnification of the hyperspectral image. Position and orientation system (POS); Red-Green-Blue (RGB); Region of interest (ROI).
Figure 3.
Preprocessing flow. (a) Image preprocessing flow. (b) RGB orthophoto image. (c) Correction hyperspectral image. (d) A local magnification of the hyperspectral image. Position and orientation system (POS); Red-Green-Blue (RGB); Region of interest (ROI).
Figure 4.
The canopy range of different damage degrees. (A) Healthy. (B) Mild damage. (C) Moderate damage. (D) Severe damage.
Figure 4.
The canopy range of different damage degrees. (A) Healthy. (B) Mild damage. (C) Moderate damage. (D) Severe damage.
Figure 5.
The entrance and exit holes of Pine shoot beetles (PSBs) captured by the M200+Z30.
Figure 5.
The entrance and exit holes of Pine shoot beetles (PSBs) captured by the M200+Z30.
Figure 6.
Linear fitting of the measured and predicted values of Ground-DSR.
Figure 6.
Linear fitting of the measured and predicted values of Ground-DSR.
Figure 7.
The curves of Yunnan pine canopies with different degrees of damage. (a) Spectral reflectance curves and (b) first derivative curves.
Figure 7.
The curves of Yunnan pine canopies with different degrees of damage. (a) Spectral reflectance curves and (b) first derivative curves.
Figure 8.
Spectral ratio curves of Yunnan pine canopy.
Figure 8.
Spectral ratio curves of Yunnan pine canopy.
Figure 9.
Results of the one-way ANOVA of the wavelengths. (A) The original spectra. (B) The S-G spectra. (C) The first derivative. The data are presented as the mean ± standard error, a, b, c and d indicate that the damage degree is significantly different at this band (p < 0.05), while the same letter indicates that there is no significant difference.
Figure 9.
Results of the one-way ANOVA of the wavelengths. (A) The original spectra. (B) The S-G spectra. (C) The first derivative. The data are presented as the mean ± standard error, a, b, c and d indicate that the damage degree is significantly different at this band (p < 0.05), while the same letter indicates that there is no significant difference.
Figure 10.
Results of the one-way ANOVA of the hyperspectral parameters. (A) Dr, SDy, SDb, and Db. (B) SDr, SDnir, and (Rg − Rr)/(Rg + Rr). (C) SR1, Rg/Rr, and SR2. a, b, c and d indicate that the damage degree is significantly different at this parameter (p < 0.05), while the same letter indicates that there is no significant difference.
Figure 10.
Results of the one-way ANOVA of the hyperspectral parameters. (A) Dr, SDy, SDb, and Db. (B) SDr, SDnir, and (Rg − Rr)/(Rg + Rr). (C) SR1, Rg/Rr, and SR2. a, b, c and d indicate that the damage degree is significantly different at this parameter (p < 0.05), while the same letter indicates that there is no significant difference.
Figure 11.
Linear fitting of the measured and predicted values. (a) The original spectral model. (b) The S-G spectral model. (c) The model of the first derivative. (d) The model of hyperspectral parameters.
Figure 11.
Linear fitting of the measured and predicted values. (a) The original spectral model. (b) The S-G spectral model. (c) The model of the first derivative. (d) The model of hyperspectral parameters.
Table 1.
The damage degree of individual Yunnan pine caused by the pine shoot beetle (PSB).
Table 1.
The damage degree of individual Yunnan pine caused by the pine shoot beetle (PSB).
Damage Degree | Healthy | Mild Damage | Moderate Damage | Severe Damage |
---|
Damaged shoot ratio (DSR, %) | <10 | 10~20 | 21~50 | >51 |
Table 2.
Main parameters of the UHD S185 (provided by the manufacturer).
Table 2.
Main parameters of the UHD S185 (provided by the manufacturer).
Parameters | Value | Parameters | Value |
---|
Wavelength range | 450–950 nm | Digital resolution | 12 bit |
Sampling interval | 4 nm | Cube resolution | 1.0 megapixels |
Spectral resolution | 8 nm at 532 nm | Field of view | 20° |
Spectral channels | 125 | Imaging speed | 5 Cubes/s |
Weight | 470 g | Spectral throughput | 2500 spectra/cube |
Table 3.
Spectral parameters. Two types of spectral parameters were used in this study: vegetation indices and hyperspectral parameters. We also list specific calculation formulas and describe specific meanings. Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI); Red Edge Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI705); Simple Ratio Index (SR); Photochemical Reflectance Index (PRI).
Table 3.
Spectral parameters. Two types of spectral parameters were used in this study: vegetation indices and hyperspectral parameters. We also list specific calculation formulas and describe specific meanings. Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI); Red Edge Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI705); Simple Ratio Index (SR); Photochemical Reflectance Index (PRI).
Variable Categories | Variable Definitions and Formulas | References |
---|
Vegetation indexes | | [27] |
| [28] |
| [29] |
| [27] |
| [28] |
| [27] |
Hyperspectral parameters | Reflectance parameters | Rg (Green mountain): Maximum reflectance in the wavelength range of 520–560 nm | [30] |
Rr (Red valley): Minimum reflectance in the wavelength range of 640–680 nm | [30] |
| [31] |
| [31] |
Rg/Rr | [31] |
D/H | [31] |
(Rg − Rr)/(Rg + Rr) | [31] |
(D − H)/(D + H) | [31] |
First derivative parameters | Db: The maximum value of the first derivative in the blue edge region (470–520 nm) | [30] |
Dy: The maximum value of the first derivative spectra in the yellow edge region (560–590 nm) | [30] |
Dr: The maximum value of the first derivative spectra in the red-edge region (660–740 nm) | [31] |
Dnir: The maximum value of the first derivative spectra in near-infrared region (760–950 nm) | [31] |
SDb: The sum of the first derivative values in the blue edge region | [30] |
SDy: The sum of the first derivative values in the yellow edge region | [30] |
SDr: The sum of the first derivative values in the red-edge region | [30] |
SDnir: The sum of the first derivative values in the near-infrared region | [31] |
SDr/SDb | [31] |
SDr/SDy | [31] |
SDnir/SDb | [31] |
SDnir/SDr | [31] |
(SDr − SDb)/(SDr + SDb) | [31] |
(SDr − SDy)/(SDr + SDy) | [31] |
Table 4.
Comparison table for Canopy-DSR and Ground-DSR.
Table 4.
Comparison table for Canopy-DSR and Ground-DSR.
Sample Number | Damage Degree | Ground-DSR | Canopy-DSR | Longitude | Latitude |
---|
1-001 | Healthy | 0.05 | 0 | 103.33114 | 24.76616 |
1-002 | Healthy | 0.03 | 0 | 103.33245 | 24.76626 |
2-016 | Mild damage | 0.12 | 0.19 | 103.33352 | 24.76843 |
4-013 | Severe damage | 0.93 | 1 | 103.33764 | 24.77149 |
Table 5.
Fitting equation of Ground-DSR (n = 56) and accuracy validation (n = 24). y is the Ground-DSR obtained by the fitting equation, and x is the Canopy-DSR. Damaged shoot ratio (DSR); Root-mean-square error (RMSE); Relative-root-mean-square error (rRMSE).
Table 5.
Fitting equation of Ground-DSR (n = 56) and accuracy validation (n = 24). y is the Ground-DSR obtained by the fitting equation, and x is the Canopy-DSR. Damaged shoot ratio (DSR); Root-mean-square error (RMSE); Relative-root-mean-square error (rRMSE).
Regression Equation of Ground-DSR | Fitting Accuracy | Prediction Accuracy | Bias |
---|
R2 | RMSE | rRMSE | R2 | RMSE | rRMSE |
---|
y = 0.007 + 1.005x | 0.989 | 0.032 | 0.098 | 0.992 | 0.033 | 0.072 | <0.001 |
Table 6.
The results of the correlation analysis and collinearity diagnosis of different spectral processing methods. The Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) is the result of the Pearson correlation analysis; Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) are the results of the collinearity diagnosis.
Table 6.
The results of the correlation analysis and collinearity diagnosis of different spectral processing methods. The Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) is the result of the Pearson correlation analysis; Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) are the results of the collinearity diagnosis.
The Original Spectra | The S-G Spectra | The First Derivative |
---|
Band | PCC | Tolerance | VIF | Band | PCC | Tolerance | VIF | Band | PCC | Tolerance | VIF |
---|
774 | −0.895 ** | <0.001 | 3230.847 | 774 | −0.895 ** | <0.001 | 2556.225 | 698 | −0.875 ** | 0.006 | 154.402 |
778 | −0.896 ** | <0.001 | 8201.209 | 778 | −0.895 ** | <0.001 | 142,212.548 | 702 | −0.899 ** | 0.001 | 669.673 |
782 | −0.895 ** | <0.001 | 7197.148 | 782 | −0.895 ** | <0.001 | 9926.257 | 706 | −0.914 ** | 0.001 | 976.484 |
786 | −0.895 ** | <0.001 | 9905.203 | 786 | −0.895 ** | <0.001 | 176,513.343 | 710 | −0.921 ** | 0.001 | 1108.016 |
790 | −0.895 ** | <0.001 | 3117.318 | 790 | −0.895 ** | <0.001 | 6018.624 | 714 | −0.922 ** | 0.001 | 850.018 |
794 | −0.896 ** | <0.001 | 14,842.297 | 794 | −0.896 ** | <0.001 | 60,787.606 | 718 | −0.919 ** | 0.001 | 683.963 |
798 | −0.897 ** | <0.001 | 3659.827 | 798 | −0.897 ** | <0.001 | 51,612.218 | 722 | −0.906 ** | 0.002 | 607.944 |
802 | −0.896 ** | <0.001 | 16,819.991 | 802 | −0.897 ** | <0.001 | 4077.492 | 726 | −0.888 ** | 0.002 | 413.520 |
806 | −0.896 ** | <0.001 | 5105.823 | 806 | −0.896 ** | <0.001 | 75,617.265 | 730 | −0.874 ** | 0.004 | 222.503 |
810 | −0.895 ** | <0.001 | 3302.066 | 810 | −0.895 ** | <0.001 | 2483.072 | 734 | −0.851 ** | 0.024 | 41.300 |
Table 7.
Discriminant analysis results of different spectral processing methods.
Table 7.
Discriminant analysis results of different spectral processing methods.
Method | Band | Fisher Discriminant Function | Accuracy |
---|
Healthy | Mild Damage | Moderate Damage | Severe Damage |
---|
The original spectra | R798 | 590.800 | 510.114 | 439.481 | 335.998 | 71.30% |
(constant) | −81.925 | −61.429 | −45.953 | −27.436 |
The S-G spectra | RS-G798 | 589.695 | 509.072 | 439.010 | 335.408 | 71.30% |
(constant) | −81.735 | −61.266 | −45.918 | −27.380 |
The first derivative | D714 | 29,055.047 | 23,456.192 | 19,216.080 | 13,381.829 | 80.00% |
(constant) | −72.215 | −47.548 | −32.367 | −16.411 |
Table 8.
Variable screening results of different spectral processing methods. Screening results were processed through stepwise discriminant analysis. PCCs are the results of the Pearson correlation analysis.
Table 8.
Variable screening results of different spectral processing methods. Screening results were processed through stepwise discriminant analysis. PCCs are the results of the Pearson correlation analysis.
Method | Step | Variable | PCC |
---|
The original spectra | 1 | R798 | −0.897 ** |
2 | R690 | −0.274 * |
The S-G spectra | 1 | RS-G802 | −0.897 ** |
2 | RS-G690 | −0.275 ** |
The first derivative | 1 | D714 | −0.922 ** |
2 | D650 | 0.694 ** |
Hyperspectral parameters | 1 | Dr | −0.924 ** |
Table 9.
Stepwise discriminant analysis results for different spectral processing methods. Stepwise discriminant analysis was carried out on the results of four spectral data processing methods and the damage degree. The discriminant coefficient of each degree of damage is listed in Fisher’s discriminant function. Constant represents the constant term in the discriminant function.
Table 9.
Stepwise discriminant analysis results for different spectral processing methods. Stepwise discriminant analysis was carried out on the results of four spectral data processing methods and the damage degree. The discriminant coefficient of each degree of damage is listed in Fisher’s discriminant function. Constant represents the constant term in the discriminant function.
Method | Band | Fisher’s Discriminant Function | Modeling Accuracy | Cross-Validation |
---|
Healthy | Mild Damage | Moderate Damage | Severe Damage |
---|
The original spectra | R690 | −539.930 | −322.091 | −227.446 | −98.199 | 83.80% | 82.50% |
R798 | 788.055 | 627.785 | 522.575 | 371.874 |
(constant) | −93.288 | −65.472 | −47.969 | −27.812 |
The S-G spectra | RS-G690 | −544.965 | −327.158 | −233.401 | −100.343 | 82.50% | 78.80% |
RS-G802 | 794.239 | 633.431 | 528.802 | 375.697 |
(constant) | −93.823 | −65.918 | −48.486 | −28.076 |
The first derivative | D650 | −15,686.086 | −13,897.181 | −14,131.453 | 6483.093 | 85.00% | 85.00% |
D714 | 28,460.216 | 22,929.199 | 18,680.203 | 13,627.674 |
(constant) | −72.911 | −48.095 | −32.932 | −16.530 |
Hyperspectral parameters | Dr | 31,819.500 | 25,766.666 | 21,463.581 | 15,099.681 | 86.30% | 83.80% |
(constant) | −79.503 | −52.610 | −36.930 | −18.977 |
Table 10.
Multivariate Linear Regression (MLR) model of the damage degree of the Yunnan pine canopy caused by PSB.
Table 10.
Multivariate Linear Regression (MLR) model of the damage degree of the Yunnan pine canopy caused by PSB.
Model | Regression Equation | Fitting Accuracy | Prediction Accuracy | Bias |
---|
R2 | RMSE | rRMSE | R2 | RMSE | rRMSE |
---|
The original spectra | y = 5.224 + 27.346R690 − 24.592R798 | 0.864 | 0.416 | 0.277 | 0.822 | 0.472 | 0.315 | −0.068 |
The S-G spectra | y = 5.231 + 27.360RS-G690 − 24.623RS-G802 | 0.862 | 0.419 | 0.279 | 0.827 | 0.465 | 0.310 | −0.067 |
The first derivative | y = 4.855 + 1098.028D650 − 896.053D714 | 0.861 | 0.420 | 0.280 | 0.821 | 0.474 | 0.316 | −0.051 |
Hyperspectral parameters | y = 5.123 − 1010.441Dr | 0.862 | 0.420 | 0.280 | 0.824 | 0.469 | 0.313 | −0.047 |
Table 11.
Quantitative discriminant rules of the damage degree of Yunnan pine canopy caused by PSB (n = 56). The threshold value was determined based on the median of the average values of the two degrees of damage.
Table 11.
Quantitative discriminant rules of the damage degree of Yunnan pine canopy caused by PSB (n = 56). The threshold value was determined based on the median of the average values of the two degrees of damage.
Model | Value | Healthy | Mild Damage | Moderate Damage | Severe Damage |
---|
The original spectra | Average | 0.190 | 1.123 | 1.850 | 2.838 |
Threshold value | <0.657 | (0.657,1.486) | (1.486,2.344) | ≥2.344 |
The S-G spectra | Average | 0.192 | 1.119 | 1.850 | 2.838 |
Threshold value | <0.655 | (0.655,1.484) | (1.484,2.344) | ≥2.344 |
The first derivative | Average | 0.239 | 1.084 | 1.784 | 2.893 |
Threshold value | <0.661 | (0.661,1.434) | (1.434,2.339) | ≥2.339 |
Hyperspectral parameters | Average | 0.219 | 1.109 | 1.807 | 2.867 |
Threshold value | <0.664 | (0.664,1.458) | (1.458,2.337) | ≥2.337 |
Table 12.
Accuracy test results of the rules (n = 24).
Table 12.
Accuracy test results of the rules (n = 24).
Model | Damage Degree | Healthy | Mild | Moderate | Severe | Test Accuracy | Overall Accuracy |
---|
The original spectra | Healthy | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100.00% | 87.50% |
Mild | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 100.00% |
Moderate | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 83.33% |
Severe | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 66.67% |
The S-G spectra | Healthy | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100.00% | 83.33% |
Mild | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 100.00% |
Moderate | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 66.67% |
Severe | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 66.67% |
The first derivative | Healthy | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100.00% | 79.17% |
Mild | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 100.00% |
Moderate | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 66.67% |
Severe | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 50.00% |
Hyperspectral parameters | Healthy | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% | 83.33% |
Mild | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
Moderate | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 83.33% |
Severe | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 50.00% |