Demonstrates spatial distribution of flammable tree species in Yajiang County, implying effective fire risk assessment.
The spatial distribution of flammable tree species directly influences forest fuel structure and fire risk patterns. However, mixed pixels limit the ability of conventional classification methods to characterize continuous within-pixel variation in species composition, thereby constraining fine-scale forest mapping. To address this issue, this study developed a subpixel mapping framework for flammable tree species in Yajiang County, Sichuan Province, by integrating Sentinel-2 time-series data with a spectral mixing–unmixing strategy. Using 2019 Sentinel-2 time-series data and National Forest Inventory (NFI) data, temporal mixed samples with known abundance fractions were generated using a linear spectral mixing model. An XGBoost-based collaborative multi-regression framework was then applied to estimate the proportions of different tree-species endmembers within complex forest pixels. Quantitative evaluation using synthetic mixed samples showed that the model achieved stable unmixing performance across different random mixing scenarios. The best performance was obtained under the Mixed 2 scenario with a sample size of 250 K, reaching an R2 of 0.821. The resulting maps revealed continuous spatial variation in the abundance and composition of flammable tree species. Mountain pine was the most widespread and dominant species, followed by spruce and mountain oak, whereas birch and fir mainly exhibited localized patchy distributions. An additional NFI-based categorical evaluation assessed the consistency of the final maps with real forest inventory records. The identification accuracies were 93.95% for pure stands and 91.22% for mixed stands, while the species classification accuracies were 87.28% for pure stands and 84.41% for dominant species in mixed stands. The proposed framework provides useful spatial information for regional forest fuel assessment and fire risk management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: