Evaluating The National Land Cover Database Tree Canopy and Impervious Cover Estimates Across the Conterminous United States: A Comparison with Photo-Interpreted Estimates

The 2001 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) provides 30-m resolution estimates of percentage tree canopy and percentage impervious cover for the conterminous United States. Previous estimates that compared NLCD tree canopy and impervious cover estimates with photo-interpreted cover estimates within selected counties and places revealed that NLCD underestimates tree and impervious cover. Based on these previous results, a wall-to-wall comprehensive national analysis was conducted to determine if and how NLCD derived estimates of tree and impervious cover varies from photo-interpreted values across the conterminous United States. Results of this analysis reveal that NLCD significantly underestimates tree cover in 64 of the 65 zones used to create the NCLD cover maps, with a national average underestimation of 9.7% (standard error (SE) = 1.0%) and a maximum underestimation of 28.4% in mapping zone 3. Impervious cover was also underestimated in 44 zones with an average underestimation of 1.4% (SE = 0.4%) and a maximum underestimation of 5.7% in mapping zone 56. Understanding the degree of underestimation by mapping zone can lead to better estimates of tree and impervious cover and a better understanding of the potential limitations associated with NLCD cover estimates

AI-powered transmitted light microscopy for functional analysis of live cells

Transmitted light microscopy can readily visualize the morphology of living cells. Here, we introduce artificial-intelligence-powered transmitted light microscopy (AIM) for subcellular structure identification and labeling-free functional analysis of live cells. AIM provides accurate images of subcellular organelles; allows identification of cellular and functional characteristics (cell type, viability, and maturation stage); and facilitates live cell tracking and multimodality analysis of immune cells in their native form without labeling

A ROC analysis-based classification method for landslide susceptibility maps

[EN] A landslide susceptibility map is a crucial tool for landuse spatial planning and management in mountainous areas. An essential issue in such maps is the determination of susceptibility thresholds. To this end, the map is zoned into a limited number of classes. Adopting one classification system or another will not only affect the map's readability and final appearance, but most importantly, it may affect the decision-making tasks required for effective land management. The present study compares and evaluates the reliability of some of the most commonly used classification methods, applied to a susceptibility map produced for the area of La Marina (Alicante, Spain). A new classification method based on ROC analysis is proposed, which extracts all the useful information from the initial dataset (terrain characteristics and landslide inventory) and includes, for the first time, the concept of misclassification costs. This process yields a more objective differentiation of susceptibility levels that relies less on the intrinsic structure of the terrain characteristics. The results reveal a considerable difference between the classification methods used to define the most susceptible zones (in over 20% of the surface) and highlight the need to establish a standard method for producing classified susceptibility maps. The method proposed in the study is particularly notable for its consistency, stability and homogeneity, and may mark the starting point for consensus on a generalisable classification method.Cantarino-Martí, I.; Carrión Carmona, MÁ.; Goerlich-Gisbert, F.; Martínez Ibáñez, V. (2018). A ROC analysis-based classification method for landslide susceptibility maps. Landslides. 1-18. doi:10.1007/s10346-018-1063-4S118Armstrong MP, Xiao N, Bennett DA (2003) Using genetic algorithms to create multicriteria class intervals for choropleth maps. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93(3):595–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.9303005Atkinson P, Massari R (1998) Generalised linear modelling of susceptibility to landsliding in the central Apennines, Italy. Comput Geosci 24(4):373–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-3004(97)00117-9Ayalew L, Yamagishi H (2005) The application of GIS-based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility mapping in the Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains, Central Japan. Geomorphology 65(1–2):15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.06.010Baeza C, Lantada N, Amorim S (2016) Statistical and spatial analysis of landslide susceptibility maps with different classification systems. Environ Earth Science 75:1318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6124-1Basofi A, Fariza A, Ahsan AS, Kamal IM (2015) A comparison between natural and head/tail breaks in LSI (landslide susceptibility index) classification for landslide susceptibility mapping: a case study in Ponorogo, East Java, Indonesia. 2015 International Conference on Science in Information Technology, pp 337–342Cantarino I (2013) Elaboración y validación de un modelo jerárquico derivado de SIOSE. Revista de Teledetección 39:5–21Carrara A, Crosta GB, Frattini P (2008) Comparing models of debris-flow susceptibility in the alpine environment. Geomorphology 94(3–4):353–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.10.033Chacón J, Irigaray C, Fernández T, El Hamdouni R (2006) Engineering geology maps: landslides and geographical information systems. Bull Eng Geol Environ 65(4):341–411Chung CJF, Fabbri AG (2003) Validation of spatial prediction models for landslide hazard mapping. Nat Hazards 30:451–472COPUT (1998) Lithology, exploitation of industrial rocks and landslide risk in the Valencian Community. Thematic Mapping Series. Department of Public Works of the Valencian Regional GovernmentDrummond C, Holte RC (2006) Cost curves: an improved method for visualizing classifier performance. Mach Learn 65(1):95–130Duman TY, Can T, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA, Sonmez H (2006) Application of logistic regression for landslide susceptibility zoning of Cekmece Area, Istanbul, Turkey. Environ Geol 51(2):241–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-006-0322-1Evans IS (1977) The selection of class intervals. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. Contemp Cartograph 2(1):98–124. https://doi.org/10.2307/622195Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC (2003) Statistical methods for rates and proportions, Book Series: Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons. Print ISBN: 9780471526292. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/0471445428Foody GM (2004) Thematic map comparison: evaluating the statistical significance of differences in classification accuracy. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 70(5):627–633Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M (2000) Quantitative geography: perspectives on spatial data analysis. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks 270 ppFrattini P, Crosta G, Carrara A (2010) Techniques for evaluating the performance of landslide susceptibility models. Eng Geol 111(1–4):62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.12.004Geisser S (1998) Comparing two tests used for diagnostic or screening processes. Stat Probability Lett 40:113–119Greiner M, Pfeiffer D, Smith RD (2000) Principles and practical application of the receiver-operating characteristic analysis for diagnostic tests. Prev Vet Med 45:23–41Günther A, Reichenbach P, Malet JP, van den Eeckhaut M, Hervás J, Dashwood C, Guzzetti F (2013) Tier-based approaches for landslide susceptibility assessment in Europe. Landslides 10:529–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-012-0349-1Günther A, Van Den Eeckhaut M, Malet J-P, Reichenbach P, Hervás J (2014) Climate-physiographically differentiated Pan-European landslide susceptibility assessment using spatial multi-criteria evaluation and transnational landslide information. Geomorphology 224:69–85Gupta RP, Kanungo DP, Arora MK, Sarkar S (2008) Approaches for comparative evaluation of raster GIS-based landslide susceptibility zonation maps. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 10(3):330–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2008.01.003Guzzetti F, Reichenbach P, Ardizzone F, Cardinali M, Galli M (2006) Estimating the quality of landslide susceptibility models. Geomorphology 81(1–2):166–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.04.007Hervás J (2017) El inventario de movimientos de ladera de España ALISSA: Metodología y análisis preliminar. In: Alonso E, Corominas J, Hürlimann M (Eds.), Taludes 2017. Proc. IX Simposio Nacional sobre Taludes y Laderas Inestables, Santander, 27–30 June 2017. CIMNE, Barcelona, pp. 629–639Jaedicke C, Van Den Eeckhaut M, Nadim F et al (2014) Identification of landslide hazard and risk ‘hotspots’ in Europe. Bull Eng Geol Environ 73:325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-013-0541-0Jenks GF (1967) The data model concept in statistical mapping. Int Yearbook Cartograph 7:186–190Jiang B (2013) Head/tail breaks: a new classification scheme for data with a heavy-tailed distribution. Prof Geogr 65(3):482–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2012.700499Kiang MY (2003) A comparative assessment of classification methods. Decis Support Syst 35(4):441–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00110-0Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174Langping L, Hengxing L, Changbao G, Yongshuang Z, Quanwen L, Yuming W (2017) A modified frequency ratio method for landslide susceptibility assessment. Landslides 14:727–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-016-0771-xLee S (2007) Comparison of landslide susceptibility maps generated through multiple logistic regression for three test areas in Korea. Earth Surf Process Landforms 32:2133–2148. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1517Liu C, Frazier P, Kumar L (2007) Comparative assessment of the measures of thematic classification accuracy. Remote Sens Environ 107(4):606–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2006.10.010López-Ratón M, Rodríguez-Álvarez MX, Cadarso-Suárez C, Gude-Sampedro F (2014) Optimal cutpoints: an R package for selecting optimal cutpoints in diagnostic tests. J Stat Softw 61(8):4Malet JP, Puissant A, Mathieu A, Van Den Eeckhaut M, Fressard M (2013) Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for country-scale landslide susceptibility analysis: application to France. In: Margottini C, Canuti P, Sassa K (eds) Landslide science and practice. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31325-7_40McGee S (2002) Simplifying likelihood ratios. J Gen Intern Med 17:647–650Metz C (1978) Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med VIII(4):183–198Nadim F, Kjekstad O, Peduzzi P, Herold C, Jaedicke C (2006) Global landslide and avalanche hotspots. Landslides 3:159–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-006-0036-1Ohlmacher G, Davis J (2003) Using multiple logistic regression and GIS technology to predict landslide hazard in northeast Kansas, USA. Eng Geol 69(3–4):331–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(03)00069-3Powell RL, Matzke N, de Souza C Jr, Clark M, Numata I, Hess LL, Roberts DA (2004) Sources of error accuracy assessment of thematic land-cover maps in the Brazilian Amazon. Remote Sens Environ 90(2):221–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2003.12.007Saaty T (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New YorkSmits PC, Dellepiane SG, Schowengerdt RA (1999) Quality assessment of image classification algorithms for land-cover mapping: a review and proposal for a cost-based approach. Int J Remote Sens 20:1461–1486Stehman SV, Czaplewski RL (1998) Design and analysis of thematic map accuracy assessment: fundamental principles. Remote Sens Environ 64:331–344Swets JA (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240(4857):1285–1293Van Den Eeckhaut M, Hervás J, Jaedicke C, Malet J-P, Montanarella L, Nadim F (2012) Statistical modelling of Europe-wide landslide susceptibility using limited landslide inventory data. Landslides 8:357–369Varnes DJ (1984) Landslide hazard zonation: a review of principles and practice. Natural hazards. UNESCO, ParisZhu X (2016) GIS for environmental applications. Routledge, Abingdon, p 490Zweig MH, Campbell G (1993) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39(4):561–57

Spatiotemporal patterns and environmental drivers of human echinococcoses over a twenty-year period in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, China

Background Human cystic (CE) and alveolar (AE) echinococcoses are zoonotic parasitic diseases that can be influenced by environmental variability and change through effects on the parasites, animal intermediate and definitive hosts, and human populations. We aimed to assess and quantify the spatiotemporal patterns of human echinococcoses in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region (NHAR), China between January 1994 and December 2013, and examine associations between these infections and indicators of environmental variability and change, including large-scale landscape regeneration undertaken by the Chinese authorities. Methods Data on the number of human echinococcosis cases were obtained from a hospital-based retrospective survey conducted in NHAR for the period 1 January 1994 through 31 December 2013. High-resolution imagery from Landsat 4/5-TM and 8-OLI was used to create single date land cover maps. Meteorological data were also collected for the period January 1980 to December 2013 to derive time series of bioclimatic variables. A Bayesian spatio-temporal conditional autoregressive model was used to quantify the relationship between annual cases of CE and AE and environmental variables. Results Annual CE incidence demonstrated a negative temporal trend and was positively associated with winter mean temperature at a 10-year lag. There was also a significant, nonlinear effect of annual mean temperature at 13-year lag. The findings also revealed a negative association between AE incidence with temporal moving averages of bareland/artificial surface coverage and annual mean temperature calculated for the period 11–15 years before diagnosis and winter mean temperature for the period 0–4 years. Unlike CE risk, the selected environmental covariates accounted for some of the spatial variation in the risk of AE. Conclusions The present study contributes towards efforts to understand the role of environmental factors in determining the spatial heterogeneity of human echinococcoses. The identification of areas with high incidence of CE and AE may assist in the development and refinement of interventions for these diseases, and enhanced environmental change risk assessment

A comparison of sampling designs for estimating deforestation from Landsat imagery: A case study of the Brazilian Legal Amazon

Three sampling designs - simple random, stratified random, and systematic sampling - are compared on the basis of precision of estimated loss of intact humid tropical forest area in the Brazilian Legal Amazon from 2000 to 2005. MODIS-derived deforestation is used to partition the study area into strata to intensify sampling within forest clearing hotspots. The precision of the estimator of deforestation area for each design is calculated from a population of wall-to-wall PRODES deforestation data available for the study area. Both systematic and stratified sampling yield smaller standard errors than simple random sampling, and the stratified design has smaller standard errors than the systematic design at each sample size evaluated. The results of this case study demonstrate the utility of a stratified design based on MODIS-derived deforestation data to improve precision of the estimated loss of intact forest area as estimated from sampling Landsat imagery

Time-series analysis of multi-resolution optical imagery for quantifying forest cover loss in Sumatra and Kalimantan, Indonesia

Monitoring loss of humid tropical forests via remotely sensed imagery is critical for a number of environmental monitoring objectives, including carbon accounting, biodiversity, and climate modeling science applications. Landsat imagery, provided free of charge by the U.S. Geological Survey Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science (USGS/EROS), enables consistent and timely forest cover loss updates from regional to biome scales. The Indonesian islands of Sumatra and Kalimantan are a center of significant forest cover change within the humid tropics with implications for carbon dynamics, biodiversity maintenance and local livelihoods. Sumatra and Kalimantan feature poor observational coverage compared to other centers of humid tropical forest change, such as Mato Grosso, Brazil, due to the lack of ongoing acquisitions from nearby ground stations and the persistence of cloud cover obscuring the land surface. At the same time, forest change in Indonesia is transient and does not always result in deforestation, as cleared forests are rapidly replaced by timber plantations and oil palm estates. Epochal composites, where single best observations are selected over a given time interval and used to quantify change, are one option for monitoring forest change in cloudy regions. However, the frequency of forest cover change in Indonesia confounds the ability of image composite pairs to quantify all change. Transient change occurring between composite periods is often missed and the length of time required for creating a cloud-free composite often obscures change occurring within the composite period itself. In this paper, we analyzed all Landsat 7 imagery with < 50% cloud cover and data and products from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) to quantify forest cover loss for Sumatra and Kalimantan from 2000 to 2005