Back

Using a planted tree biodiversity experiment to evaluate imaging spectroscopy for species classification

van Moorsel, S. J.; Schmid, B.; Niederberger, M.; Huggel, J.; Scherer-Lorenzen, M.; Rascher, U.; Damm, A.; Schuman, M. C.

2026-03-20 ecology
10.64898/2026.03.20.713086 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Field-based monitoring of tree species in forests is often sparse due to logistical constraints. Remote sensing enables repeated, spatially contiguous collection of reflectance data across large areas. Tree species classification accuracy using such data is variable, likely because most studies use observational datasets where species occurrence correlates with environmental variation. We used two sites of a tree biodiversity experiment in Germany (BIOTREE: Kaltenborn and Bechstedt), where different species have been planted with high replication under controlled diversity levels, to assess how well tree species could be classified using reflectance data from airborne imaging spectroscopy and different classification methods (linear discriminant analysis, LDA, and a non-linear support vector machine, SVM). Reflectance data for 589 wavelengths between 400-2400 nm were acquired at 1 m spatial resolution during peak growing season. Reflectance spectra showed large and significant variation between taxonomic classes, orders, and species, and weak, but still significant, interactions between classes or orders and diversity levels. Classification accuracy reached 100% in training datasets, 77%-83% for the four species in Kaltenborn prediction datasets, and 31%-49% for the 16 species in Bechstedt prediction datasets. LDA provided more accurate predictions than SVM; and using similarly-spaced original wavelengths with LDA was as efficient as using principal components derived from the original data. While airborne imaging spectroscopy effectively distinguished up to four tree species in our datasets, classification accuracy was lower in more species-rich plots. In these cases, the methodology may be more useful for functional diversity monitoring than for tree species classification.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
18.6%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 3%
12.7%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 22%
8.4%
4
Plant Methods
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
5
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
Ecological Indicators
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
7
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.9%
8
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
9
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
10
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
11
Forest Ecology and Management
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
12
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
13
Journal of Environmental Management
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
14
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
15
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.7%
16
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 43%
1.7%
17
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
18
Plants
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
19
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
20
Communications Earth & Environment
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
21
Global Change Biology
69 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
22
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 22%
0.9%
23
Journal of Experimental Botany
195 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
24
Phytopathology®
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
25
The Plant Phenome Journal
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
26
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.6%
27
MethodsX
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%