Historical Image Analysis of Tree Mortality at Horseshoe Lake

Read conference abstract View conference poster (PDF)

Duration: June 2016 - October 2017
Affiliation: US Geological Survey
What: Federal research project
My Role: Intern-turned-employee, and occasional field assistant

The Task

I joined the USGS Menlo Park office as a NAGT intern upon my college graduation. The USGS/NAGT Cooperative Field Training Program matches top-performing recent grads with USGS research projects nationwide. I was matched with a photogrammetry and landscape change analysis project within a research group focusing on hydrothermal systems.

This project’s study site was Horseshoe Lake, a recreation area southwest of Mammoth Mountain in Mono County, California. USGS scientists had been studying a unique case of tree dieoff there for a few years, caused by extremely high soil CO2 flux. (More info here.)

My PIs and mentors wished to answer the questions, “How much barren area was present at Horseshoe Lake before magmatic CO2 flux became so high? How has the tree kill area changed over time, and what is the area of this tree kill today?”

Timeline I created to summarize seismic, carbon flux, and tree kill events during a portion of the study period. Green indicates increased carbon dioxide flux, and Pink indicates decreased carbon dioxide flux. Sources: Cook et al, 2001; Lewicki et al, 2014. Slide is excerpted from talk I gave at the conclusion of my internship.
Timeline I created to summarize seismic, carbon flux, and tree kill events during a portion of the study period. Green indicates increased carbon dioxide flux, and Pink indicates decreased carbon dioxide flux. Sources: Cook et al, 2001; Lewicki et al, 2014. Slide is excerpted from talk I gave at the conclusion of my internship.

Project Goals

My Approach

I experimented with many image classification methods to select the most suitable method for my historical photographs. This involved reading and synthesizing a lot of seemingly unrelated literature (i.e. machine learning, computer vision) to pick the best technique for my case.

Preliminary tests showed that small differences in the spectral signatures used to “train” the landcover classes led to very large differences in classified image output. To counteract this variation, I took a Monte-Carlo approach: classify each photograph 1000 times based on a random subset of training spectra, and create a final land cover classification based on the average of these 1000 runs.

To control for the effect of image artifacts (i.e heavy shadow) on classification accuracy, I also conducted a landcover classification at an unchanging control site in each photograph, using the same 1000 signature files on which our HSL classifications were based. If the estimated tree-covered area at the control site in a particular image was 25% lower than the mean across the study period, for example, we considered this a 25% under-estimation of the true tree cover due to image artifacts. I could then state whether our HSL classifications under- or over-estimated tree cover and by how much.

Four years of historical photographs overlaid with our ~31.6ha region of interest (top) and the average land cover classification within the region of interest (bottom).
Four years of historical photographs overlaid with our ~31.6ha region of interest (top) and the average land cover classification within the region of interest (bottom).

Findings

Outcome Highlights

Sources cited on this page:
Cook et al, 2001
Lewicki et al, 2014
Werner et al, 2014

« Back to Projects