林业科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 62 ›› Issue (5): 80-95.doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.LYKX20250332
王嘉豪1,2,3(
),谢一帆1,2,3,葛靖航1,2,3,王嘉鑫1,2,3,张晓丽1,2,3,*(
),田昕4
收稿日期:2025-05-26
修回日期:2025-10-28
出版日期:2026-05-10
发布日期:2026-10-17
通讯作者:
张晓丽
E-mail:wangjiahao7@bjfu.edu.cn;zhang-xl@263.net
基金资助:
Jiahao Wang1,2,3(
),Yifan Xie1,2,3,Jinghang Ge1,2,3,Jiaxin Wang1,2,3,Xiaoli Zhang1,2,3,*(
),Xin Tian4
Received:2025-05-26
Revised:2025-10-28
Online:2026-05-10
Published:2026-10-17
Contact:
Xiaoli Zhang
E-mail:wangjiahao7@bjfu.edu.cn;zhang-xl@263.net
摘要:
目的: 针对树种分类面临的小样本、光谱混淆和跨传感器泛化能力弱等问题,构建自监督对比学习的原型网络,联合星载多光谱与机载LiDAR高度信息,探究其在小样本条件下及不同传感器间的分类效能和稳健性,为大区域森林资源动态监测提供参考。方法: 基于实地调查数据和Google Earth高清历史影像标注地类样本,构建包含3大类10小类的样本数据集。分别利用Sentinel-2和GF-6星载多光谱影像,并引入机载LiDAR生成的冠层高度模型(CHM)作为扩展波段,应用高度信息增强植被与非植被的区分能力。提出一种集成CBAM注意力机制和SimCLR自监督对比学习的改进型原型网络,以增强特征表达能力和小样本学习性能。通过控制变量法评估波段数量和空间分辨率对树种识别的影响,验证分类模型在不同数据集上的泛化性能。结果: 在Sentinel-2和GF-6数据上的树种分类精度(OA)均超过85%,在支持集中仅提供少量具有代表性的标注样本就能取得较理想的分类效果,表明本研究模型在小样本条件下的稳健性;注意力机制和自监督策略的引入,使分类精度较基线原型网络提升均超过2.00%,分类性能显著优于随机森林(RF)和二维卷积神经网络(2D-CNN);跨传感器试验表明,Sentinel-2在光谱区分上更具优势,GF-6凭借2 m分辨率在边界表征上表现更优,二者分类结果重叠像元比例普遍超过60%,验证模型良好的跨传感器泛化能力;联合LiDAR冠层高度信息后,Sentinel-2和GF-6数据的总体精度分别提升3.85%和2.73%,在光谱相似树种上显著缓解了“同谱异物”问题。结论: 星载多光谱影像与LiDAR数据的联合应用可有效突破传统二维光谱信息分类的局限,改进型原型网络通过注意力机制与对比学习的协同优化,能够显著提升小样本学习效能和跨传感器泛化能力。
中图分类号:
王嘉豪,谢一帆,葛靖航,王嘉鑫,张晓丽,田昕. 联合星载多光谱影像与机载LiDAR数据的树种小样本分类[J]. 林业科学, 2026, 62(5): 80-95.
Jiahao Wang,Yifan Xie,Jinghang Ge,Jiaxin Wang,Xiaoli Zhang,Xin Tian. Small Sample Classification of Tree Species Using Combined Satellite Multispectral Imagery and Airborne LiDAR[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2026, 62(5): 80-95.
表1
样本数据集信息"
| 类别 Types | 训练像元数 Training pixels | 测试像 元数 Test pixels | 合计 Total | |
| 主要树种 Main tree species | 栎类Quercus | 1 098 | 2 602 | 3 700 |
| 桉树Eucalyptus | 960 | 2 240 | 3 200 | |
| 思茅松Pinus kesiya var. langbianensis | 988 | 2 212 | 3 200 | |
| 其他树种 Other tree species | 706 | 1 594 | 2 300 | |
| 农作物 Crops | 耕地Farmland | 1 319 | 3 081 | 4 400 |
| 茶园Tea plantation | 1 267 | 3 173 | 4 440 | |
| 咖啡园Coffee plantation | 804 | 1 896 | 2 700 | |
| 非植被 Non-vegetation | 水体Water | 876 | 1 924 | 2 800 |
| 建设用地Buildings | 857 | 1 943 | 2 800 | |
| 采伐迹地Cutting-site | 587 | 1 413 | 2 000 | |
表2
GF-6不同训练集比例下的分类准确率①"
| 训练样本占比 Training set ratio | 20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 100 | |||||||||||||||
| 支持集参数K-shot | 1 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 5 | 10 | |||||
| 总体精度Overall accuracy (%) | 79.51 | 80.23 | 80.56 | 80.1 | 81.63 | 81.65 | 84.7 | 84.64 | 84.40 | 78.73 | 84.54 | 83.87 | 84.04 | 85.42 | 84.15 | |||||
| 栎类 Quercus | 63.85 | 67.03 | 65.91 | 68.69 | 67.38 | 69.06 | 70.42 | 68.91 | 70.44 | 68.11 | 69.54 | 71.20 | 71.42 | 73.60 | 73.51 | |||||
| 桉树Eucalyptus | 85.33 | 81.01 | 85.75 | 85.34 | 82.1 | 84.11 | 87.17 | 88.95 | 85.43 | 92.06 | 89.38 | 92.24 | 88.51 | 88.79 | 88.45 | |||||
| 思茅松Pinus kesiya var. langbianensis | 81.58 | 81.12 | 80.84 | 86.01 | 84.24 | 88.75 | 89.79 | 86.50 | 84.29 | 80.93 | 84.55 | 82.67 | 90.91 | 88.87 | 90.34 | |||||
| 其他树种Other tree species | 48.44 | 49.59 | 49.49 | 51.3 | 55.85 | 54.08 | 61.17 | 55.91 | 58.49 | 54.63 | 57.95 | 55.5 | 56.97 | 58.03 | 55.27 | |||||
| 耕地Farmland | 84.81 | 86.18 | 86.37 | 83.14 | 87.22 | 84.72 | 95.48 | 92.97 | 93.18 | 92.88 | 92.43 | 91.29 | 92.78 | 93.23 | 93.54 | |||||
| 茶园Tea plantation | 82.78 | 80.55 | 82.60 | 88.66 | 83.76 | 86.67 | 76.18 | 81.07 | 81.99 | 79.72 | 86.08 | 86.23 | 84.54 | 88.56 | 86.23 | |||||
| 咖啡园Coffee plantation | 64.58 | 68.08 | 68.39 | 58.42 | 66.43 | 64.43 | 83.28 | 82.23 | 80.24 | 51.46 | 74.52 | 72.38 | 67.87 | 71.60 | 69.69 | |||||
| 水体Water | 99.95 | 99.95 | 99.90 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.74 | 100.00 | 99.79 | 100 | 99.95 | 99.84 | 100 | 99.95 | |||||
| 建设用地Buildings | 95.16 | 97.38 | 96.88 | 97.88 | 97.65 | 96.13 | 93.76 | 95.86 | 94.77 | 99.58 | 98.67 | 97.84 | 98.87 | 97.83 | 95.79 | |||||
| 采伐迹地Cutting-site | 91.52 | 89.66 | 88.96 | 95.00 | 91.09 | 92.52 | 96.28 | 95.06 | 91.50 | 90.55 | 92.82 | 93.35 | 95.30 | 94.73 | 90.97 |
表3
改进原型网络在Sentinel-2和GF-6数据上的消融试验①"
| 数据 Data | 注意力机制 CBAM | 监督学习 SimCLR | 训练时间 Training time/s | 平均精度 Average accuracy (AA) (%) | 总体精度 Overall accuracy (OA) (%) | |
| 空间模块 Spatial | 通道模块 Channel | |||||
| Sentinel-2 | ⅹ | ⅹ | ⅹ | 166 | 92.10 | 92.11 |
| √ | ⅹ | ⅹ | 268 | 92.18 | 92.20 | |
| ⅹ | √ | ⅹ | 325 | 92.15 | 92.19 | |
| √ | √ | ⅹ | 212 | 92.31 | 92.32 | |
| √ | √ | √ | 281 | 92.50 | 92.41 | |
| GF-6 | ⅹ | ⅹ | ⅹ | 228 | 85.52 | 85.42 |
| √ | ⅹ | ⅹ | 280 | 85.58 | 85.51 | |
| ⅹ | √ | ⅹ | 270 | 85.53 | 85.40 | |
| √ | √ | ⅹ | 262 | 86.11 | 86.65 | |
| √ | √ | √ | 438 | 87.23 | 87.05 | |
表4
改进原型网络在各个地物类别的分类精度"
| 编号Code | 类别名称Name | 精确率Precision (%) | 召回率Recall (%) | F1分数 F1-score (%) | |||||
| Sentinel-2 | GF-6 | Sentinel-2 | GF-6 | Sentinel-2 | GF-6 | ||||
| 1 | 栎类 Quercus | 94.39 | 81.70 | 84.74 | 68.64 | 89.31 | 74.60 | ||
| 2 | 桉树Eucalyptus | 93.49 | 90.58 | 96.83 | 89.24 | 95.13 | 89.90 | ||
| 3 | 思茅松Pinus kesiya var. langbianensis | 90.41 | 92.13 | 98.46 | 91.55 | 94.27 | 91.84 | ||
| 4 | 其他树种Other tree species | 87.86 | 59.74 | 85.38 | 76.98 | 86.61 | 67.27 | ||
| 5 | 耕地Farmland | 96.87 | 94.05 | 94.42 | 90.75 | 95.63 | 92.37 | ||
| 6 | 茶园Tea plantation | 92.42 | 85.56 | 84.90 | 84.81 | 88.50 | 85.19 | ||
| 7 | 咖啡园Coffee plantation | 75.87 | 77.35 | 93.35 | 87.18 | 83.71 | 81.97 | ||
| 8 | 水体Water | 99.69 | 99.90 | 99.95 | 99.74 | 99.82 | 99.82 | ||
| 9 | 建设用地Buildings | 99.79 | 97.22 | 91.82 | 93.52 | 95.73 | 95.33 | ||
| 10 | 采伐迹地Cutting-site | 94.00 | 94.09 | 99.79 | 92.43 | 96.81 | 93.25 | ||
表5
Sentinel-2波段组合与GF-6分辨率组合联合CHM的分类结果①"
| 数据 Data | 组合方式 Combination method | 训练时间 Training times(%) | 平均精度 Average sccuracy (AA) (%) | 总体精度 Overall accuracy (OA) (%) |
Sentinel-2 | 原始10波段 Origin 10 bands | 166 | 92.10 | 92.11 |
| 原始10波段+CHM Origin 10 bands+CHM | 228 | 95.95(+3.85) | 95.96(+3.85) | |
| 降维4波段 PCA4 bands | 108 | 84.56 | 83.99 | |
| 降维4波段+CHM PCA4 bands+CHM | 147 | 87.62(+3.06) | 87.43(+3.44) | |
| 原始2 m Origin 2 m | 228 | 85.52 | 85.42 | |
| GF-6 | 原始2 m+CHM Origin 2 m+CHM | 248 | 88.04(+2.52) | 88.15(+2.73) |
| 重采样10 m Resample 10 m | 97 | 90.42 | 90.14 | |
| 重采样10 m+CHM Resample 10 m+CHM | 101 | 93.36(+2.94) | 93.07(+2.93) |
表6
各地物类别在原始原型网络联合冠层高度信息下的分类精度"
| 编号Code | 类别名称Name | 精确率Precision (%) | 召回率Recall (%) | F1分数F1-score (%) | |||||
| Sentinel-2 | GF-6 | Sentinel-2 | GF-6 | Sentinel-2 | GF-6 | ||||
| 1 | 栎类 Quercus | 93.53 | 75.63 | 96.66 | 78.25 | 95.07 | 76.92 | ||
| 2 | 桉树Eucalyptus | 95.98 | 92.06 | 99.20 | 91.16 | 97.56 | 91.61 | ||
| 3 | 思茅松Pinus kesiya var. langbianensis | 98.44 | 94.00 | 97.02 | 89.87 | 97.72 | 91.89 | ||
| 4 | 其他树种Other tree species | 94.96 | 64.47 | 89.84 | 67.50 | 92.33 | 65.95 | ||
| 5 | 耕地Farmland | 97.24 | 93.83 | 98.44 | 94.84 | 97.84 | 94.33 | ||
| 6 | 茶园Tea plantation | 99.46 | 93.50 | 87.61 | 79.33 | 93.16 | 85.83 | ||
| 7 | 咖啡园Coffee plantation | 84.26 | 75.80 | 98.26 | 91.19 | 90.72 | 82.79 | ||
| 8 | 水体Water | 99.84 | 99.90 | 99.95 | 99.84 | 99.90 | 99.92 | ||
| 9 | 建设用地Buildings | 99.95 | 96.65 | 95.78 | 94.40 | 97.82 | 95.77 | ||
| 10 | 采伐迹地Cutting-site | 95.79 | 94.48 | 99.86 | 98.16 | 97.78 | 96.29 | ||
表7
不同算法在Sentinel-2和GF-6数据联合冠层高度信息的分类精确率①"
| 编号Code | 类别名称Name | 随机森林RF | 二维卷积2D-CNN | 本研究方法Methods used in this study | |||||
| Sentinel-2 | GF-6 | Sentinel-2 | GF-6 | Sentinel-2 | GF-6 | ||||
| 1 | 栎类 Quercus | 85.21 | 68.29 | 95.67 | 71.77 | 93.30 | 83.03 | ||
| 2 | 桉树Eucalyptus | 90.71 | 86.47 | 93.22 | 88.15 | 97.98 | 92.91 | ||
| 3 | 思茅松Pinus kesiya var. langbianensis | 94.64 | 90.71 | 95.91 | 86.83 | 98.01 | 91.20 | ||
| 4 | 其他树种Other tree species | 86.20 | 75.67 | 93.84 | 80.20 | 95.26 | 63.17 | ||
| 5 | 耕地Farmland | 91.55 | 81.39 | 98.87 | 88.22 | 98.79 | 95.41 | ||
| 6 | 茶园Tea plantation | 87.21 | 77.26 | 96.77 | 88.14 | 94.46 | 90.76 | ||
| 7 | 咖啡园Coffee plantation | 95.78 | 81.13 | 95.58 | 86.38 | 95.61 | 83.61 | ||
| 8 | 水体Water | 99.95 | 99.74 | 99.79 | 99.69 | 99.95 | 99.64 | ||
| 9 | 建设用地Buildings | 97.92 | 95.82 | 99.22 | 97.05 | 99.79 | 96.69 | ||
| 10 | 采伐迹地Cutting-site | 98.81 | 95.96 | 96.65 | 94.16 | 97.72 | 94.11 | ||
| 平均精度 Average accuracy(%) | 92.80 | 85.24 | 96.55 | 88.06 | 97.09 | 89.05 | |||
| 总体精度 Overall accuracy(%) | 91.96 | 83.60 | 96.62 | 87.34 | 96.92 | 89.21 | |||
表8
联合冠层高度在改进型原型网络上各个地物类别的分类评价结果"
| 编号Code | 类别名称Name | 精确率Precision (%) | 召回率Recall (%) | F1分数 F1-score (%) | |||||
| Sentinel-2 | GF-6 | Sentinel-2 | GF-6 | Sentinel-2 | GF-6 | ||||
| 1 | 栎类Quercus | 93.53 | 75.63 | 96.66 | 78.25 | 95.07 | 76.92 | ||
| 2 | 桉树Eucalyptus | 95.98 | 92.06 | 99.20 | 91.16 | 97.56 | 91.61 | ||
| 3 | 思茅松Pinus kesiya var. langbianensis | 98.44 | 94.00 | 97.02 | 89.87 | 97.72 | 91.89 | ||
| 4 | 其他树种Other tree species | 94.96 | 64.47 | 89.84 | 67.50 | 92.33 | 65.95 | ||
| 5 | 耕地Farmland | 97.24 | 93.83 | 98.44 | 94.84 | 97.84 | 94.33 | ||
| 6 | 茶园Tea plantation | 99.46 | 93.50 | 87.61 | 79.33 | 93.16 | 85.83 | ||
| 7 | 咖啡园Coffee plantation | 84.26 | 75.80 | 98.26 | 91.19 | 90.72 | 82.79 | ||
| 8 | 水体Water | 99.84 | 99.90 | 99.95 | 99.84 | 99.90 | 99.92 | ||
| 9 | 建设用地Buildings | 99.95 | 96.65 | 95.78 | 94.40 | 97.82 | 95.77 | ||
| 10 | 采伐迹地Cutting-site | 95.79 | 94.48 | 99.86 | 98.16 | 97.78 | 96.29 | ||
表9
主要树种类别重叠像元占比统计"
| 类别名称 Name | Sentinel-2重叠 像元占比 Percentage of overlapping pixels (Sentinel-2)(%) | GF-6重叠 像元占比 Percentage of overlapping pixels (Sentinel-2)(%) |
| 栎类 Quercus | 70.67 | 73.87 |
| 桉树Eucalyptus | 62.75 | 63.56 |
| 思茅松Pinus kesiya var. langbianensis | 62.45 | 61.69 |
| 其他树种Other tree species | 49.39 | 46.70 |
| 耕地Farmland | 72.18 | 70.07 |
| 茶园Tea plantation | 77.94 | 70.75 |
| 咖啡园Coffee plantation | 64.83 | 63.50 |
| 李树涛, 李聪妤, 康旭东. 多源遥感图像融合发展现状与未来展望. 遥感学报, 2021, 25 (1): 148- 166. | |
| Li S T, Li C Y, Kang X D. Development status and future prospects of multi-source remote sensing image fusion. Journal of Remote Sensing, 2021, 25 (1): 148- 166. | |
|
李 煜, 李崇贵, 刘思涵, 等. 应用哨兵2A多时相遥感影像对树种的识别. 东北林业大学学报, 2021, 49 (3): 44- 47,51.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2021.03.008 |
|
|
Li Y, Li C G, Liu S H, et al. Tree species recognition with sentinel-2A multitemporal remote sensing image. Journal of Northeast Forestry University, 2021, 49 (3): 44- 47,51.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5382.2021.03.008 |
|
| 李增元, 刘清旺, 庞 勇. 激光雷达森林参数反演研究进展. 遥感学报, 2016, 20 (5): 1138- 1150. | |
| Li Z Y, Liu Q W, Pang Y. Review on forest parameters inversion using LiDAR. Journal of Remote Sensing, 2016, 20 (5): 1138- 1150. | |
| 刘大伟, 韩 玲, 韩晓勇. 基于深度学习的高分辨率遥感影像分类研究. 光学学报, 2016, 36 (4): 298- 306. | |
| Liu D W, Han L, Han X Y. High spatial resolution remote sensing image classification based on deep learning. Acta Optica Sinica, 2016, 36 (4): 298- 306. | |
| 刘 戈, 姜小光, 唐伯惠. 特征优选与卷积神经网络在农作物精细分类中的应用研究. 地球信息科学学报, 2021, 23 (6): 1071- 1081. | |
| Liu G, Jiang S G, Tang B H. Application of feature optimization and convolutional neural network in crop classification. Journal of Geo-Information Science, 2021, 23 (6): 1071- 1081. | |
|
刘鲁霞, 庞 勇, 李增元. 基于地基激光雷达的亚热带森林单木胸径与树高提取. 林业科学, 2016, 52 (2): 26- 37.
doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20160204 |
|
|
Liu L X, Pang Y, Li Z Y. Individual tree DBH and height estimation using terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) in a subtropical forest. Scientia Silvae Sinica, 2016, 52 (2): 26- 37.
doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20160204 |
|
|
刘世荣, 王 晖, 李海奎, 等. 碳中和目标下中国森林碳储量、碳汇变化预估与潜力提升途径. 林业科学, 2024, 60 (4): 157- 172.
doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.LYKX20230206 |
|
|
Liu S R, Wang H, Li H K, et al. Projections of China’s forest carbon storage and sequestration and ways of their potential capacity enhancement. Scientia Silvae Sinica, 2024, 60 (4): 157- 172.
doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.LYKX20230206 |
|
|
刘 颖, 雷研博, 范九伦, 等. 基于小样本学习的图像分类技术综述. 自动化学报, 2021, 47 (2): 297- 315.
doi: 10.16383/j.aas.c190720 |
|
|
Liu Y, Lei Y B, Fan J L, et al. Survey on image classification technology based on small sample learning. Acta Automatica Sinica, 2021, 47 (2): 297- 315.
doi: 10.16383/j.aas.c190720 |
|
| 马鸿伟, 刘 海, 姚顺彬, 等. 基于林业遥感的树种分类应用分析与展望. 林业资源管理, 2020 (3): 118- 121. | |
| Ma H W, Liu H, Yao S B, et al. Analysis and prospect of tree species classification based on forestry remote sensing. Forest Resources Management, 2020 (3): 118- 121. | |
|
王美华, 吴振鑫, 周祖光. 基于注意力改进CBAM的农作物病虫害细粒度识别研究. 农业机械学报, 2021, 52 (4): 239- 247.
doi: 10.6041/j.issn.1000-1298.2021.04.025 |
|
|
Wang M H, Wu Z X, Zhou Z G. Fine-grained identification research of crop pests and diseases based on improved CBAM via attention. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery, 2021, 52 (4): 239- 247.
doi: 10.6041/j.issn.1000-1298.2021.04.025 |
|
|
王智超, 马天天, 邵亚奎, 等. 面向未来的中国智慧林业: 观测仪器体系的演进与发展趋势. 林业科学, 2024, 60 (4): 1- 15.
doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.LYKX20220903 |
|
|
Wang Z C, Ma T T, Shao Y K, et al. Future oriented smart forestry in China: evolution and development trends of observation instrument systems. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2024, 60 (4): 1- 15.
doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.LYKX20220903 |
|
| 肖庆琳, 张加龙, 曹 军, 等. 耦合多特征多时相的普洱市优势树种分类研究. 森林工程, 2024, 40 (2): 117- 126. | |
| Xiao Q L, Zhang J L, Cao J, et al. 2024. Research on the classification of dominant tree species in Pu’er City by coupling multiple characteristics and multiple phases. Forest Engineering, 2024, 40 (2): 117- 126. | |
|
张良培, 沈焕锋. 遥感数据融合的进展与前瞻. 遥感学报, 2016, 20 (5): 1050- 1061.
doi: 10.11834/jrs.20166243 |
|
|
Zhang, L P, and Shen H F. Progress and future of remote sensing data fusion. Journal of Remote Sensing, 2016, 20 (5): 1050- 1061.
doi: 10.11834/jrs.20166243 |
|
| 朱钟正, 苏 伟. 基于局部空间统计分析的SPOT 5影像分类. 遥感学报, 2011, 15 (5): 957- 972. | |
| Zhu Z Z, Su W. The analysis of the classification of SPOT 5 image based on local spatial statistics. Journal of Remote Sensing, 2011, 15 (5): 957- 972. | |
|
左溪冰, 刘 智, 金 飞, 等. 面向高光谱影像小样本分类的全局−局部特征自适应融合方法. 地球信息科学学报, 2023, 25 (8): 1699- 1716.
doi: 10.12082/dqxxkx.2023.230058 |
|
|
Zuo X B, Liu Z, Jin F, et al. Global-local feature adaptive fusion method for small sample classification of hyperspectral images. Journal of Geo-Information Science, 2023, 25 (8): 1699- 1716.
doi: 10.12082/dqxxkx.2023.230058 |
|
| Alajaji D, Alhichri H S, Ammour N, et al. 2020. Few-shot learning for remote sensing scene classification. 2020 Mediterranean and Middle-East Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (M2GARSS), March 9−11, 2020, Tunis, Tunisia, IEEE, 81−84. | |
|
Chakraborty D, Ciceu A, Ballian D, et al. Assisted tree migration can preserve the European forest carbon sink under climate change. Nature Climate Change, 2024, 14 (8): 845- 852.
doi: 10.1038/s41558-024-02080-5 |
|
|
Chen L, Wei Y X, Yao Z Q, et al. Data augmentation in prototypical networks for forest tree species classification using airborne hyperspectral images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2022, 60, 1- 16.
doi: 10.1109/tgrs.2022.3168054 |
|
|
Chen L, Wu J, Xie Y F, et al. Discriminative feature constraints via supervised contrastive learning for few-shot forest tree species classification using airborne hyperspectral images. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2023, 295, 113710.
doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2023.113710 |
|
|
Chen L, Tian X M, Chai G Q, et al. A new CBAM-P -net model for few-shot forest species classification using airborne hyperspectral images. Remote Sensing, 2021, 13 (7): 1269.
doi: 10.3390/rs13071269 |
|
|
de Conto T, Armston J, Dubayah R. Characterizing the structural complexity of the earth’s forests with spaceborne LiDAR. Nature Communications, 2024, 15, 8116.
doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-52468-2 |
|
|
Deur M, Gašparović M, Balenović I. Tree species classification in mixed deciduous forests using very high spatial resolution satellite imagery and machine learning methods. Remote Sensing, 2020, 12 (23): 3926.
doi: 10.3390/rs12233926 |
|
| Jiang D W, Li W B, Cao M, et al. 2020. Speech SIMCLR: combining contrastive and reconstruction objective for self-supervised speech representation learning. arXiv: 2010.13991. https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.13991. | |
| Hamzaoui M, Chapel L, Pham M T, et al. 2022. A hierarchical prototypical network for few-shot remote sensing scene classification. Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 208−220. | |
| Zhang H Y, Cisse M, Dauphin Y N, et al. 2017. Mixup: beyond empirical risk minimization. arXiv: 1710.09412. https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09412. | |
| Inoue H. 2018. Data augmentation by pairing samples for images classification. arXiv: 1801.02929. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.02929. | |
|
Li Y S, Zhu Z H, Yu J G, et al. Learning deep cross-modal embedding networks for zero-shot remote sensing image scene classification. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2021, 59 (12): 10590- 10603.
doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2020.3047447 |
|
|
Lei L, Chai G, Yao Z Q, et al. A novel self-similarity cluster grouping approach for individual tree crown segmentation using multi-features from UAV-based LiDAR and multi-angle photogrammetry data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2025, 318, 114588.
doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2024.114588 |
|
|
Qiu C P, Zhang X Y, Tong X C, et al. Few-shot remote sensing image scene classification: recent advances, new baselines, and future trends. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 2024, 209, 368- 382.
doi: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2024.02.005 |
|
|
Ramezan C A, Warner T A, Maxwell A E, et al. Effects of training set size on supervised machine-learning land-cover classification of large-area high-resolution remotely sensed data. Remote Sensing, 2021, 13 (3): 368.
doi: 10.3390/rs13030368 |
|
| Woo S, Park J, Lee J Y, et al. 2018. CBAM: convolutional block attention module. Computer Vision – ECCV 2018. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 3−19. | |
| Snell J, Swersky K, Zemel R. 2017. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. arXiv: 1703.05175. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05175. | |
| DeVries T, Taylor G W. 2017. Improved regularization of convolutional neural networks with cutout. arXiv: 1708.04552. https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.04552. | |
| Yun S, Han D, Chun S, et al. 2019. CutMix: regularization strategy to train strong classifiers with localizable features. 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), October 27-November 2, 2019, Seoul, Korea, IEEE, 6022−6031. | |
|
Wu J, Chen L, Wang J Q, et al. A novel framework combining band selection algorithm and improved 3D prototypical network for tree species classification using airborne hyperspectral images. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2024, 219, 108813.
doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2024.108813 |
| [1] | 朱学岩,张怀清,杨廷栋,傅汝饶,崔泽宇,葛晓宁,谢先建. 基于无人机图像和小样本学习的林木计数方法[J]. 林业科学, 2026, 62(7): 74-87. |
| [2] | 陈广胜,温林郅,张文均,李超,于鸣,景维鹏. 基于特征融合的复杂场景树种跨域泛化分类模型[J]. 林业科学, 2025, 61(4): 33-45. |
| [3] | 杨兵兵,许杰. 改进ConvNeXt网络的树种识别方法[J]. 林业科学, 2025, 61(2): 31-39. |
| [4] | 张聪,刘琪,李海奎,刘鹏举,詹思颖. 我国尺度兼容和树种分类的材积源森林碳储量模型[J]. 林业科学, 2025, 61(1): 57-69. |
| [5] | 毛英伍,郭颖,张王菲,苏勇,关塬. 联合LiDAR、高光谱数据及3D-CNN方法的树种分类[J]. 林业科学, 2023, 59(3): 73-83. |
| [6] | 苏佳杰,张哲宇,徐嘉俊,李彬,吕军,姚青. 基于深度双线性转换注意力机制网络的林业有害生物识别方法[J]. 林业科学, 2023, 59(2): 121-128. |
| [7] | 冯林艳,谭炳香,刘清旺,周超凡,于航,张会儒,符利勇. 基于GF-2影像的崇礼冬奥核心区土地覆盖和树种分类[J]. 林业科学, 2022, 58(10): 10-23. |
| [8] | 赵霖,张晓丽,吴艳双,张斌. 面向机载高光谱数据的3D-CNN亚热带森林树种分类[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(11): 97-107. |
| [9] | 刘金丽, 陈钊, 高金萍, 高显连, 孙忠秋. 高分影像树种分类的最优分割尺度确定方法[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(11): 95-104. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||