Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Jan 26;17(1):e0256672. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256672

Mapping vegetation species succession in a mountainous grassland ecosystem using Landsat, ASTER MI, and Sentinel-2 data

Efosa Gbenga Adagbasa 1,*, Geofrey Mukwada 1,2,3
Editor: Bijeesh Kozhikkodan Veettil4
PMCID: PMC8791488  PMID: 35081107

Abstract

Vegetation species succession and composition are significant factors determining the rate of ecosystem biodiversity recovery after being disturbed and subsequently vital for sustainable and effective natural resource management and biodiversity. The succession and composition of grasslands ecosystems worldwide have significantly been affected by accelerated environmental changes due to natural and anthropogenic activities. Therefore, understanding spatial data on the succession of grassland vegetation species and communities through mapping and monitoring is essential to gain knowledge on the ecosystem and other ecosystem services. This study used a random forest machine learning classifier on the Google Earth Engine platform to classify grass vegetation species with Landsat 7 ETM+ and ASTER multispectral imager (MI) data resampled with the current Sentinel-2 MSI data to map and estimate the changes in vegetation species succession. The results indicate that ASTER MI has the least accuracy of 72%, Landsat 7 ETM+ 84%, and Sentinel-2 had the highest of 87%. The result also shows that other species had replaced four dominant grass species totaling about 49 km2 throughout the study.

Introduction

Vegetation succession has many economically significant attributes, including high overall biomass and productivity, a wider variety of species, and minimal nutrients or energy from the ecosystem [1]. Nevertheless, an ecosystem with naturally occurring succession stages will be more resilient to natural and anthropogenic disturbances, suppose these disturbances increase in severity, frequency, and magnitude because of human activities and weather conditions. In that case, the pressure on plant communities increases, causing accelerated succession, creating a new vegetation community, and allowing the succession of non-native species [2].

Luken [1] describes vegetation succession as a change in vegetation composition over 500 years without being disturbed to achieve a climax’s stable species composition. Climate change and other disturbances within a short period may result in fluctuations of species composition, promote non-native species and delay the natural vegetational succession from reaching its climax. The succession of non-native species could impact biodiversity and the natural ecosystem. Non-native invasive species quickly inhabit disturbed spaces and delay native species from achieving seral or climax states. In some cases, the succession is entirely taken over and held for an extended period at an intermediate state, affecting biodiversity [3–5]. Invasive vegetation species threaten native vegetation species and water resources because they grow faster, consume more water, and spread more than the native species [6, 7]. The encroachment of these vegetation species tends to alter the balance of ecosystems, thereby accelerating succession. Vegetation species succession and composition are significant factors determining the rate of ecosystem biodiversity recovery after being disturbed [8] and subsequently vital for sustainable and effective natural resource management and biodiversity. For example, in South Africa, changes in vegetation succession resulting from disturbances have led to significant biodiversity loss [9].

Worldwide, the succession and composition of grasslands ecosystems have been significantly affected by accelerated environmental changes due to natural and anthropogenic activities [10, 11]. It has resulted in shortages in grasslands taxonomy and the efficient functioning of ecosystem services [12]. Grasslands’ changing diversity and composition impact ecosystem services like precipitation and temperature controls, freshwater supply, erosion control, and soil formation [13–15]. They can likely result in biodiversity loss [16]. About one-third of South African land surface is covered by the grassland biome [17]. It has less than 3% located in protected areas, and 40–60% have been altered with little chance of being salvaged and returned. It makes the grassland one of the most vulnerable biomes in South Africa [18]. Therefore, understanding spatial data on the succession of grassland vegetation species and communities through mapping and monitoring is essential to gain knowledge on the ecosystem and other ecosystem services [9, 19, 20].

Remote sensing provides an efficient approach for mapping grassland vegetation species by reducing rigorous fieldwork necessitated by standard mapping methods. It does this effectively by offering a wide range of recent data on vegetation species distribution from hyperspectral and multispectral imagery [21, 22]. Extensive studies have been undertaken in monitoring spatio-temporal changes in vegetation species composition and diversity using remote sensing data [23–26]. However, these studies focus briefly on a short period, usually between one to five years, because, before now, only high-resolution hyperspectral images could give accurate vegetation species discrimination at individual levels [9, 19, 27–30]. Osińska-Skotak et al. [24] study the effect of high-resolution hyperspectral ima and LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) acquisition date on species identification and, as a result, on classifying individual species in succession trees and shrubs. The researchers also look into the classification accuracy of a particular species is influenced by the research field and the examined environment. The study determined that the time of remote-sensing data collection affects the ability to distinguish succession species. In another study, [31] developed a method for detecting and monitoring the succession process, which is defined as woody vegetation encroachment on non-forest Natura 2000 areas, based on airborne laser scanner (ALS) and hyperspectral (HS) data. Chraibi et al. [32], in their study on changes in tree biodiversity throughout succession, applied both field data and data derived from Sentinel-2 images of 2015 and 2019 to assess variations in tree species richness. They evaluated the benefits and drawbacks of each approach, exploring the potential for remote sensing technology to reveal landscape-level distributions of forest condition and regeneration. Their findings revealed that remote sensing and field data provided distinct insights into tree species compositional changes, as well as alpha- and beta-diversity patterns.

Nevertheless, recent studies have shown that free low-resolution satellite images like Sentinel-2 MSI and Landsat 8 OLI can be used to accurately map and monitor grass vegetation species [33–35]. Vegetation species succession and diversity monitoring can now be done over an extended period using these low-resolution imageries in combination with machine learning (ML).

Because ML can handle nonparametric information with various input predictor data, remote sensing image processing uses ML algorithms [36, 37] to achieve higher accuracy. Increasing accuracy in image classification is a frequent application of machine learning (ML) algorithms, which outperform traditional classifiers for data with many predictor variables [38, 39].

Support Vector Machines (SVM), Classification and Regression Trees (CART), Random Forest (RF), Logistics Regression (LR), Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), K-Nearest Neighbour, and Neural Networks are some of the algorithms used in machine learning for image classification. However, numerous studies have shown that random forest performs better in most cases, especially when multispectral images like Sentinel-2 are involved in vegetation species classification [34, 40, 41]. Therefore, this study used a random forest ML algorithm with Landsat 7 ETM+ and ASTER MI data fused with the current Sentinel-2 MSI data to map and estimate the changes in vegetation species succession.

Study area

The study was conducted at the Golden Gate Highlands National Park, located in Free State, South Africa, near the Lesotho border (Fig 1). The Park covers 340 km2 and is located at the foothills of the Maloti Mountains of the Eastern Free State. The highest peak in the park is 2,829 m (9,281 ft) above sea level. The Park is positioned in the Eastern Highveld region of South Africa and experiences a dry, sunny climate from June to August with showers, hail, and thunderstorms between October and April and snow in winter. The Park has a relatively high annual rainfall of 800 mm (31 in). The park is significant for its rich flora and fauna, which include endemic and endangered plants and animals. The park contains over 60 grass species [42]. The region is a biodiversity hotspot because of the variety of species, including some of the dominant species like Eragrostis, Hyparrhenia cf. Tamba, T. triandra, and M. Capensis [33, 43].

Fig 1. The study area.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Materials and methods

The study used satellite images from different sensors to cover the period of study. The sensors used include the European Union/ESA/Copernicus Sentinel-2 MSI, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Landsat series ETM+, and the NASA’s Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC) Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) multispectral imager satellite images with UTM Projection Zone35S, and Datum WGS84 available on the Google earth engine (GEE). The imageries were selected for the rainy months from November to April. The year 2001 was chosen for the Landsat +ETM, 2011 for the ASTER MI, and 2021 for Sentinel-2. Landsat ETM+ and OLI were selected for this study because they have a 15m panchromatic band used to pansharpening the images from 30 m to 15 m. ASTER MI was selected for 2011 because Landsat ETM+ had the scan line error for 2011. Also, the ASTER MI has 15 m resolution bands. The atmospheric and geometric correction was done on the images, and the 10 m bands of Sentinel-2 were then used to resample the pan sharped 15m Landsat images and ASTER MI to 10 m using bicubic interpolation. All the images from the different sensors were calibrated to top-of-atmosphere (TOA) reflectance. ArcGIS 10.7 software was used to generate a hundred random sample points from the spectral signatures of the 12 dominant grass vegetation species in the study area from a previous study [33] that used deep learning and machine learning models to discriminate grass species at the individual level. Their study recommended Sentinel-2 MSI bands 6, 7 (red edge), bands 8 and 8A, band 11, and band 12 to produce optimum classification accuracy. Therefore, the spectral resolution of these bands was used to match and select the bands in the Landsat ETM+ and ASTER MI, as presented in Table 1. The spectral signatures were used for training and cross-validation, with each sample class receiving eight or nine samples to ensure fair representation. The generated samples were saved as a shapefile, imported into GEE, and superimposed on the Landsat ETM+ and ASTER MI and Sentinel-2 image MSI. The sample points were randomly split into a training set (70%) to train the RF classifiers [33, 44] and a test set (30%) for testing purposes [33, 45] in GEE.

Table 1. Selected bands for classification.

Name Pixel Size Wavelength Description
Sentinel-2 MSI 2021
B6 20 meters 0.74 μm Red Edge 2
B7 20 meters 0.78 μm Red Edge 3
B8 10 meters 0.84 μm NIR
B8A 20 meters 0.87 μm Red Edge 4
B11 20 meters 1.614 μm SWIR 1
B12 20 meters 2.202 μm SWIR 2
ASTER MI 2011
B3N 15 meters 0.780–0.860μm VNIR_Band3N (near infrared, nadir pointing)
B04 30 meters 1.600–1.700μm SWIR_Band4 (short-wave infrared)
B05 30 meters 2.145–2.185μm SWIR_Band5 (short-wave infrared)
B06 30 meters 2.185–2.225μm SWIR_Band6 (short-wave infrared)
Landsat ETM+ 2001
B4 30 meters 0.77–0.90 μm Near infrared
B5 30 meters 1.55–1.75 μm Shortwave infrared 1
B7 30 meters 2.08–2.35 μm Shortwave infrared 2
B8 15 meters 0.52–0.90 μm Panchromatic
Open in a new tab

The GEE code editor random forest machine learning classifier with ten trees [46] was then used to process the image collections to classify the images into induvial species classes [33, 47]. Ancillary data such as Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) were mapped into the image collection on GEE before classification was done to improve classification accuracy. The difference in illuminating effect by high mountains was accounted for by mapping a 15 meters resolution ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model (GDEM) version 2 scale down to 10 m into the image collection [33, 45, 48, 49].

Results and discussion

Sensor performance and spectral reflectance

Tables 2–4 shows the accuracy of each sensor. ASTER MI has the least accuracy of 75%, Landsat 7 +ETM 84%, and Sentinel-2 had the highest of 87%. The ASTER MI had the lowest level of accuracy, possibly because [50] stated that each scene does not have all 14 bands. Therefore, some scenes may have fewer bands than others. Hence, only bands 1 to 3 were available for that period. However, these bands’ spectral range can be compared to bands 1–5 of Landsat +ETM and OLI. Another possible reason is that the three bands available didn’t adequately separate the grass species from each other, as shown in the spectral reflectance curve in Fig 2. Nevertheless, if all the bands were available, ASTER MI should discriminate the grass species effectively to attain a higher accuracy using machine learning classifiers. The accuracy of the ASTER image agrees with a study done by [51]. Their study used ASTER NDVI and EVI to discriminate rice and citrus fields with 75% and 65% accuracy, respectively. They also used Landsat 5 TM NDVI and EVI, which had a lower accuracy of 60% and 65% than the accuracy reached in this study with Landsat 7 ETM+. Landsat 7 ETM+ was able to get a greater accuracy because the bands were pan-sharpened with the 15m panchromatic bands, unavailable on the Landsat 5 TM and resampled from 30 m to10 m using the Sentinel-2 10 m bands. Also, the RF machine learning classifier, which many studies have proved to improve classification [33, 34, 52, 53], contributed to the higher accuracy in this study than the density slicing classification used in their research.

Table 2. Confusion matrix for Sentinel-2 MSI.

EC PH SP AA SC TT AJ MH EP SC MC PA Total Error of comission
E. curvula (EC) 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 83%
P. Hyparrhenia (PH) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
S. Plumosum 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 67%
A. Asteraceae 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100%
S. Centrifugus 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 67%
T. Triandra 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 100%
A. Junciformis 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 75%
M. Hermania 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
E. Plane Nees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
S. Conrathii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 100%
M. Capensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 100%
P. Australis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5
Total 6 0 3 2 2 5 3 0 0 2 2 6 31
Error of omission 83% 0% 67% 100% 100% 80% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%
Open in a new tab

Overall accuracy = (5+0+2+2+2+4+3+0+0+2+2+5) / 31 = 0.87.

0.87 x100 = 87%.

Table 4. Confusion matrix for ASTER MI.

  EC PH SP AA SC TT AJ MH EP Sco MC PA Total Error of comission
E. curvula (EC) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 71%
P. Hyparrhenia (PH) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100%
S. Plumosum (SP) 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100%
A. Asteraceae (AA) 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100%
S. Centrifugus (SC) 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 50%
T. Triandra 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 33%
A. Junciformis (AJ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 100%
M. Hermania (MH) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
E. Plane Nees (EP) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%
S. Conrathii (Sco) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 100%
M. Capensis (MC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 75%
P. Australis (PA) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 100%
Total 8 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 4 5 26  
Error of omission 63% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 75% 60%    
Open in a new tab

Overall accuracy = (5+1+2+2+1+1+2+0+0+1+3+3) / 28 = 0.75.

0.75 x100 = 75%.

Fig 2. Species spectral reflectance curves of twelve grass species.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

(a) Extracted from Landsat 7 ETM+, (b) Extracted from ASTER MI, (c) Extracted from Sentinel-2.

Table 3. Confusion matrix for Landsat 7 ETM+.

EC PH SP AA SC TT AJ MH EP SC MC PA Total Error of comission
E. curvula (EC) 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 75%
P. Hyparrhenia (PH) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 75%
S. Plumosum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
A. Asteraceae 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0%
S. Centrifugus 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100%
T. Triandra 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100%
A. Junciformis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
M. Hermania 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 100%
E. Plane Nees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 100%
S. Conrathii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 100%
M. Capensis 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 67%
P. Australis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 100%
Total 4 3 0 0 2 4 0 2 1 3 2 4 25
Error of omission 75% 100% 0% 0% 100% 50% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75%
Open in a new tab

Overall accuracy = (3+3+0+0+2+2+0+2+1+3+2+3) / 21 = 0.84.

0.84 x100 = 84%.

Fig 2 shows the spectral reflectance of the twelve grass species extracted from all the sensors. In the Landsat 7 ETM+, the species were discriminated in wavelengths of 0.52–0.77 μm and 1.55–2.08 μm, representing bands at the start of the wavelength for the panchromatic near-infrared, shortwave infrared 1, and shortwave infrared 2. The ASTER MI has its best spectral separation wavelength of 0.780–0.860μm (VNIR near-infrared, nadir pointing band). At the same time, the Sentinel-2 separated it best in the bands 6, 7 (red edge), bands 8 and 8A, band 11, and band 12 as recommended by the study by [33, 54–56], hence the difference in classification accuracy.

Grass species changes and succession

Fig 3 shows the map of twelve dominant vegetation species discrimination for 2001, 2011, and 2021. However, the classified map for 2010 was not analyzed further because of the low level of accuracy. The difference of 12% from 2001 and 15% to 2021 might misrepresent the changes that occurred with the classified maps of 2001 and 2021.

Fig 3. The map of grass species.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

(a) derived from Landsat 7 ETM+, (b) derived from the ASTER MI, (c) derived from Sentinel-2 MSI.

Fig 4 shows the vegetation changes from 2001 to 2021. It shows that four grass species had the most significant transformation into other species in area coverage over twenty years. S. centrifugus had an enormous shift of 22.6 km2, E. curvula had a change of 11.42 km2, S. Conrathii had a change of 9.7 km2, and P.australis changed 5.14 km2. The other seven grass species had gained and losses over the other four species.

Fig 4. Vegetation transformation between 2001 and 2021.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

M. junceus has the highest success rate. It has replaced different species covering a total land area of 17.22 km2. Another species fast replacing other species is the T. triandra species, replacing 11.4km2 that formerly contained other species. E. curvula, termed an increaser species by many studies (9, 33), and grows very fast in disturbed environments have been replaced by eight different species. T. triandra accounts for 50% of the total area that other species have replaced the E. curvula. Although the E. curvula being an increaser species, it had replaced other species like the S. centrifugus and area dominated by mixed species in different study locations and gained back almost 90% of the area lost to other species in Figs 5 and 6. Fig 6 shows that the replacement of E. curvula by T. triandra happens all over the study area. Still, it is more concentrated around the North, North-East, South-west, and roads of the study area.

Fig 5. Species contributions to changes in Eragrostis curvula.

Fig 5

Open in a new tab

Fig 6. Areas where Themeda triandra succeeded from Eragrostis curvula.

Fig 6

Open in a new tab

S. centrifugus, the highest replacement species, is replaced by all the other species in the study area, especially M. junceus, E. curvula, and T. triandra, accounting for 4.8km2, 4.7km2, and 3.3 km2 respectively in Fig 7. The S.centrifugus species is monocotyledon and belongs to the Poaceae family. It is a native species of South Africa and is termed one of the least concerned threatened species in the red list of South African plants [57]. The succession appears to be occurring around the South, South-western part of the study area, where there are very high elevations (Fig 8).

Fig 7. Species contributions to change in Sporobolus centrifugus.

Fig 7

Open in a new tab

Fig 8. Areas where M. junceus succeeded from S. centrifugus.

Fig 8

Open in a new tab

S. Conrathii is a native species in South Africa but not endemic to the country. It is also not seen as threatened plant species [57]. This species has about 6.26 km2 replaced by M. junceus, majorly in the southwestern (Fig 9) part of the study area but gains 1.06km2 by replacing S. centrifugus and 0.34km2 of H. depressa (Fig 10).

Fig 9. Areas where M. junceus succeeded from S. Conrathii.

Fig 9

Open in a new tab

Fig 10. Species contributions to changes in Stiburus Conrathii.

Fig 10

Open in a new tab

P. australis is a decreaser species quickly affected by overgrazing and has a slow recovery rate after a disturbance [58]. It is a tall grass found across South Africa, especially around river beds and wet environments, and is not at risk of extinction. [57, 59]. Nevertheless, Fig 11 shows that it is being replaced mainly by T. triandra (2.55 km2), E. plane Nees (2.3 km2), and M. junceus (1.4 km2). It is also gaining back by replacing S. centrifugus and E. curvula. It is found across the study area around the river channels and is replaced mainly in the southern and northern parts of the study area (Fig 12).

Fig 11. Species contributions to change in Phragmites australis.

Fig 11

Open in a new tab

Fig 12. Areas where T. triandra succeeded from P. australis.

Fig 12

Open in a new tab

The replacement of species may be happening because several factors or disturbances like that could either be natural or anthropogenic. Each species may have a unique or several reasons for replacing others or has been replaced. Some of these species are used for human activities like thatching and medicinal purposes, and some are palatable for grazing. Climate change and fires are common factors that can also affect these successions [60, 61]. The study area is a region constantly affected by wildfires, and the fire severity and magnitude have been mapped by [33]. Their research showed some parts of the study area had constantly been burnt with high fire severity over 20 years. These parts of the study area may be experiencing changes in species composition, leaving only the fire-tolerant species or invasive species like S. plumosum, which is a known species that promote the spread of wildfires [62–64]. In fires recently disturbed areas in the park, S. plumosum can sprout and lie dormant when encountering higher temperatures and low-moisture conditions for the remainder of winter while awaiting the emergence of spring [65].

Several studies have found that climatic variables like temperature changes significantly impact the distribution of ecological characteristics and environmental dynamics for many types of vegetation species, including alien or native hosts [65–67]. Temperature plays a significant role in the distribution of species, with substantial effects on fire risk. The region’s climate often has extended periods of pronounced temperature and low precipitation, resulting in large, devastating fires that devastate populations of plant life [67]. In their research in the study area, Adepoju et al. [65] noted the possibility that the distribution of some types of grasses could be better enhanced under conditions with higher daytime temperatures, low to moderate levels of rain at lower elevations. They also noted that climate is an essential factor in determining grass species distribution in the mountainous grasslands of South Africa, where periods of warm and cold weather considerably fluctuate.

Areas that are subject to overgrazing and human activities are more likely to experience the spreading of the species that can lead to gaining of new species and loss others. Factors like distance from settlement, land near grasslands and agricultural, and distance from roads impact how disturbances affect different vegetation species [65, 68, 69]. The study area has been a national park with a history of incorporating farms lands to expand the conservation area [70]. In February 1991, the Qwaqwa National Park, which initially comprised multiple crop farmlands, agricultural activities like domestic animal grazing, was also integrated into the study area. To date, some of these farmers are still located in the park, and their livestock is still grazing the vegetation [70, 71]. However, some farmers have stopped planting on them. The disturbed land has been left to recover by the park managers as a conservation strategy. Nevertheless, not all these previous farmlands have recovered fully because the soils have been over-exploited. The vegetation species in these locations struggle to survive with the effects of disturbances like frequent wildfires and overgrazing from agricultural animals from within the park or the surrounding communal areas or from the herbivorous animals within the park.

Conclusion

This study has shown that the Landsat 7 ETM+ can be used for vegetation species discrimination if the panchromatic band is used to pan sharpening the 30 m bands to 15 m and then resampled with the 10m bands Sentinel-2 MSI. It will allow for research in monitoring vegetation species changes over a long period. Although the ASTER MI wasn’t used to analyze the vegetation species changes, it also has a prospect of being used if all the recommended bands are available. The study also confirmed many other studies: using ML techniques such as RF with freely accessible Sentinel-2 MSI can identify grass species with high accuracy. The study explored the differences in vegetation species that have occurred over 20 years but didn’t explore the precise reasons why others were replacing some vegetation species. The causes and factors influencing the shift in vegetation species in some park locations can be done in a further study. It will help the park managers appropriately manage the park and prevent key vegetation species from total annihilation by other more aggressive vegetation species, preserving the animal population in the park and keeping the ecosystem healthy.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the South African National Park (SANPARKS) South Africa throughout data collection. The authors would also like to acknowledge the contribution of Prof. S.A Adelabu without whom this research would not have been possible.

Data Availability

The Google earth Engine scripts that contains all the satellite images used for the analysis, random forest classifier and how the results can be exported out of engine has been cited in the manuscript (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.17125043.v2).

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Luken. Vegetational succession, climax. Environmental Geology. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 1999. p. 652–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ma Wang, Zhou Jiao. Relative importance of climate factors and human activities in impacting vegetation dynamics during 2000–2015 in the Otindag Sandy Land, northern China. Journal of Arid Land. 2017;9(4):558–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.David Zarnetske, Hacker Ruggiero, Biel Seabloom. Invasive congeners differ in successional impacts across space and time. 2015;10(2):e0117283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Vera. Grazing ecology and forest history: Cabi; 2000.
  • 5.Dyderski Jagodziński. Impact of invasive tree species on natural regeneration species composition, diversity, and density. 2020;11(4):456. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rebelo Cowling, Richardson Pierce. Vegetation of Southern Africa. Cambridge: University Press Cambridge; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Curhes, Leigh, Walton. Weed risk assessment: African lovegrass Eragrostis curvula. 2009.
  • 8.Viana-Soto, Aguado, Martínez. Assessment of Post-Fire Vegetation Recovery Using Fire Severity and Geographical Data in the Mediterranean Region (Spain). Environments. 2017;4(4):90. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mansour Mutanga, Everson Adam. Discriminating indicator grass species for rangeland degradation assessment using hyperspectral data resampled to AISA Eagle resolution. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. 2012;70:56–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Smart Thompson, Marrs Le Duc, Maskell Firbank. Biotic homogenization and changes in species diversity across human-modified ecosystems. 2006;273(1601):2659–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Dallimer Tinch, Acs Hanley, Southall Gaston, et al. 100 years of change: examining agricultural trends, habitat change and stakeholder perceptions through the 20th century. 2009;46(2):334–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wesche Krause, Culmsee Leuschner. Fifty years of change in Central European grassland vegetation: Large losses in species richness and animal-pollinated plants. 2012;150(1):76–85. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hoeffner Beylich, Chabbi Cluzeau, Dascalu Graefe, et al. Legacy effects of temporary grassland in annual crop rotation on soil ecosystem services. Science of The Total Environment. 2021;780:146140. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146140 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zhao Liu, Wu. Grassland ecosystem services: a systematic review of research advances and future directions. 2020:1–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Muller Siebert, Ntloko Siebert, Conservation. A floristic assessment of grassland diversity loss in South Africa. 2021;51(1):1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Everson, Everson, Science. The long-term effects of fire regime on primary production of montane grasslands in South Africa. 2016;33(1):33–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Carbutt Tau, Stephens Escott. The conservation status of temperate grasslands in southern Africa. 2011;11(1):17–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Little Hockey, Jansen, Conservation. Impacts of fire and grazing management on South Africa’s moist highland grasslands: A case study of the Steenkampsberg Plateau, Mpumalanga, South Africa. 2015;45(1):1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cho Malahlela, Ramoelo. Assessing the utility WorldView-2 imagery for tree species mapping in South African subtropical humid forest and the conservation implications: Dukuduku forest patch as case study. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation. 2015;38:349–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ramoelo Cho, Mathieu Madonsela, Van De Kerchove Kaszta, et al. Monitoring grass nutrients and biomass as indicators of rangeland quality and quantity using random forest modelling and WorldView-2 data. International journal of applied earth observation and geoinformation. 2015;43:43–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Adam Mutanga, Rugege Ismail. Discriminating the papyrus vegetation (Cyperus papyrus L.) and its co-existent species using random forest and hyperspectral data resampled to HYMAP. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 2012;33(2):552–69. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Schmidt Skidmore. Spectral discrimination of vegetation types in a coastal wetland. Remote sensing of Environment. 2003;85(1):92–108. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lu He. Species classification using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)-acquired high spatial resolution imagery in a heterogeneous grassland. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. 2017;128:73–85. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Osińska-Skotak Radecka, Piórkowski Michalska-Hejduk, Kopeć Tokarska-Guzik, et al. Mapping Succession in Non-Forest Habitats by Means of Remote Sensing: Is the Data Acquisition Time Critical for Species Discrimination? 2019;11(22):2629. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hantson Kooistra, Slim. Mapping invasive woody species in coastal dunes in the N etherlands: a remote sensing approach using LIDAR and high‐resolution aerial photographs. 2012;15(4):536–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Möckel Dalmayne, Schmid Prentice, Hall. Airborne Hyperspectral Data Predict Fine-Scale Plant Species Diversity in Grazed Dry Grasslands. 2016;8(2):133. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ramoelo Skidmore, Cho Schlerf, Mathieu Heitkönig. Regional estimation of savanna grass nitrogen using the red-edge band of the spaceborne RapidEye sensor. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation. 2012;19:151–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mutanga Adam, Adjorlolo Abdel-Rahman. Evaluating the robustness of models developed from field spectral data in predicting African grass foliar nitrogen concentration using WorldView-2 image as an independent test dataset. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation. 2015;34:178–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cushnahan Yule, Pullanagari Grafton. Identifying grass species using hyperspectral sensing. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Adelabu Mutanga, Adam Sebego. Spectral discrimination of insect defoliation levels in mopane woodland using hyperspectral data. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing. 2014;7(1):177–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Osińska-Skotak Radecka, Ostrowski Michalska-Hejduk, Charyton Bakuła, et al. The Methodology for Identifying Secondary Succession in Non-Forest Natura 2000 Habitats Using Multi-Source Airborne Remote Sensing Data. 2021;13(14):2803. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Chraibi Arnold, Luque Deacon, Magurran Féret. A Remote Sensing Approach to Understanding Patterns of Secondary Succession in Tropical Forest. 2021;13(11):2148. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Adagbasa Adelabu, Okello. Application of deep learning with stratified K-fold for vegetation species discrimation in a protected mountainous region using Sentinel-2 image. Geocarto International. 2019:1–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Shoko Mutanga. Examining the strength of the newly-launched Sentinel 2 MSI sensor in detecting and discriminating subtle differences between C3 and C4 grass species. ISPRS journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing. 2017;129:32–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Sothe Almeida, Liesenberg Schimalski. Evaluating Sentinel-2 and Landsat-8 data to map sucessional forest stages in a subtropical forest in Southern Brazil. 2017;9(8):838. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Pal. Random forest classifier for remote sensing classification. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 2005;26(1):217–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Pal Mather. An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Decision Tree Methods for Land Cover Classification2003. 554–65 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hansen Dubayah, Defries. Classification trees: an alternative to traditional land cover classifiers. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 1996;17(5):1075–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Breiman. Classification and Regression Trees1984. null p.
  • 40.Chan Paelinckx. Evaluation of Random Forest and Adaboost tree-based ensemble classification and spectral band selection for ecotope mapping using airborne hyperspectral imagery. 2008;112(6):2999–3011. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Adelabu Dube. Employing ground and satellite-based QuickBird data and random forest to discriminate five tree species in a Southern African Woodland. Geocarto International. 2015;30(4):457–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Parks. Annual Report 2006/07. 2007.
  • 43.Sanpark. Golden Gate Highlands National Park Management Plan. 2012.
  • 44.Nkemelu Omeiza, Lubalo. Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Plant Seedlings Classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:181108404. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Adepoju, Adelabu, editors. Improved Landsat-8 OLI and Sentinel-2 MSI Classification in Mountainous Terrain using Machine Learning on Google Earth Engine. Proceedings of the Biennial Conference of the Society of South African Geographers; 2018; University of the Free State.
  • 46.Adagbasa Efosa Gbenga. Random forest machine learning classifier on the Google Earth Engine. figshare. Software. 2021; 10.6084/m9.figshare.17125043.v2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Sesnie Finegan, Gessler Thessler, Bendana Ramos, Smith. The multispectral separability of Costa Rican rainforest types with support vector machines and Random Forest decision trees. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 2010;31(11):2885–909. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Saha Arora, Csaplovics Gupta. Land Cover Classification Using IRS LISS III Image and DEM in a Rugged Terrain: A Case Study in Himalayas. Geocarto International. 2005;20(2):33–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Krishna. Improving Landsat and IRS Image Classification: Evaluation of Unsupervised and Supervised Classification through Band Ratios and DEM in a Mountainous Landscape in Nepal. Remote Sensing. 2009;1(4):1257–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.NASA. DAAC: ASTER Level 1 Precision Terrain Corrected Registered At-Sensor Radiance, Version 3, NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC, USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 2015.
  • 51.Hashim Hazini. Separation of Different Vegetation Types in ASTER and Landsat Satellite Images Using Satellite†derived Vegetation Indices. 2014;71(4). [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Adepoju Adelabu. Improving accuracy evaluation of Landsat-8 OLI using image composite and multisource data with Google Earth Engine. Remote Sensing Letters. 2020;11(2):107–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Sharma Hara, Hirayama. A Machine Learning and Cross-Validation Approach for the Discrimination of Vegetation Physiognomic Types Using Satellite Based Multispectral and Multitemporal Data. Scientifica. 2017;2017:8. doi: 10.1155/2017/9806479 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Wakulińska Marcinkowska-Ochtyra. Multi-temporal sentinel-2 data in classification of mountain vegetation. 2020;12(17):2696. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Immitzer Neuwirth, Böck Brenner, Vuolo Atzberger. Optimal input features for tree species classification in Central Europe based on multi-temporal Sentinel-2 data. 2019;11(22):2599. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Puletti Chianucci, Castaldi. Use of Sentinel-2 for forest classification in Mediterranean environments. 2018;42:32–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Raimondo Staden, Foden Victor, Helme Turner, et al. Red list of South African plants 2009: South African National Biodiversity Institute; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Volesky Young, Jenkins. Cattle grazing effects on Phragmites australis in Nebraska. Invasive Plant Science and Management. 2016;9(2):121–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Canavan Paterson, Lambertini Hill. Expansive reed populations—alien invasion or disturbed wetlands? AoB PLANTS. 2018;10(2). doi: 10.1093/aobpla/ply014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Leistner. Seed plants of southern Africa: families and genera: National Botanical Institute; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Russell, Watson, Koekemoer, Smook, Barker, Anderson, et al. Grasses of southern Africa1990.
  • 62.Snyman. Seriphium plumosum. Newsletter of the Grassland Society of Southern Africa; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Dubula Tefsamichael, Rampedi. Assessing the potential of remote sensing to discriminate invasive Seriphium plumosum from grass. South African Journal of Geomatics. 2016;5(2):201–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Mashalane Adjorlolo. Integrating remote sensing and geostatistics in mapping Seriphium plumosum (bankrupt bush) invasion 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Adepoju Adelabu, Mokubung, assessment. Mapping Seriphium plumosum encroachment and interaction with wildfire and environmental factors in a protected mountainous grassland. 2020;192(6):1–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Du Wang, Liu Wang, Xue Liu. Ecological niche modeling for predicting the potential risk areas of severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome. 2014;26:1–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Liu Zhao, Guo Zhang, Tan Yang. Study on climate and grassland fire in HulunBuir, Inner Mongolia autonomous region, China. 2017;17(3):616. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Keeley. Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: a brief review and suggested usage. 2009;18(1):116–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Chuvieco Riaño, Danson Martin. Use of a radiative transfer model to simulate the postfire spectral response to burn severity. 2006;111(G4). [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Rademeyer van Zyl. Golden Jubilee for Golden Gate-A Concise History of Golden Gate Highlands National Park, 1963 to 2013. 2014;5(27 P3):1169. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Slater. Between a rock and a hard place: contested livelihoods in Qwaqwa National Park, South Africa. 2002;168(2):116–29. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Bijeesh Kozhikkodan Veettil

17 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-25779Mapping Vegetation Species Succession in a Mountainous Grassland ecosystem using Landsat and Sentinel-2 dataPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Adagbasa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 01 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bijeesh Kozhikkodan Veettil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that Figure 1, 3, 6, 8, 10 and 12 in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 3, 6, 8, 10 and 12  to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ 

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

3. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [Data on grass species spectral signatures for image classification and Figure 1 (study area map) were taken from one of my published manuscripts. Including this data does not constitute dual publication because this manuscript focuses on developing a section of the previous research by testing and using a different methodology.] Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Title of the Manuscript:

Mapping Vegetation Species Succession in a Mountainous Grassland ecosystem using Landsat and Sentinel-2 data

General Remarks:

A.) The studies related to vegetation species succession are highly useful scientific sector to understand the impact of climate change on ecosystems. However, the main hurdle in this application is that the species succession studies are highly long term studies. Recent advancements in remote sensing data acquisitions yielded high resolution data through with mapping the species is now no more tedious. But the challenge in understanding the species succession is non-availability of high resolution imagery for historic dates. To overcome this challenge, authors have used machine learning techniques.

B.) At the outset, authors should first tell why they used machine learning techniques to do the change detection – viz-a-viz, species identification from the multi-date and multi-platform satellite data. What inspired/motivated and need aspect of using machine learning is to be specified.

C.) Authors have used only Random Forest classifier. Is there any other ML technique available? If so, should be addressed.

D.) Authors failed to explain the reasons for replacement of species – however they have simply attributed the reasons to several factors or disturbances (natural or anthropogenic) – This is completely putting vagueness in the article. The enthusiasm kept in the introduction has been lost due to this. Otherwise this article could have contributed value to the scientific domain

Other Remarks:

1.) Abstract:

a. “The results indicate that ASTER IM has the…” � IM? Also, many times in the manuscript this needs correction (from ASTER IM to ASTER MI)

2. If ASTER data is used then why it is not in the title of the article?

b.) Introduction Section

a. Authors could give some more information about similar work carried out by other researchers

3.) Study Area

a. Authors could elaborate more information about dominant (top 5) grass species (however it was specified as 60 grass species are available.)

4.) Materials and Methods

a. Authors could elaborate more information about dominant (top 5) grass species (however it was specified as 60 grass species are available)

5.) Results and Discussion

a. Authors have abruptly mentioned the accuracy of each sensor – they could have mentioned the process/parameters for deriving the accuracy of each sensor

b. Authors should mention the reason for replacement/or species succession for each species independently and categorically – this will add more value to the article

6.) Conclusion

a. Now it is known that Sentinel-2 MSI is more superior to other available space-borne sensors. The conclusion section is completely missing the mentioning about machine learning algorithms and its applications in this technical area.

Reviewer #2: This work used Landsat 7 EMT+, ASTER MI and Sentinel-2 MSI data to map and estimate the changes in vegetation species succession with accuracies more than 70%. This is helpful for understanding the spatial data on the succession of grassland vegetation species and communities and gain knowledge on the ecosystem and ecosystem services South Africa with large areas of grassland. As the authors stated that high-resolution hyperspectral images can give accurate vegetation species, I’d like to see how the authors obtain the 12 types of vegetation species by using the low spectral resolution images from ETM+, ASTER and Sentinel-2, unfortunately, I did not find the way the authors worked out in the section of materials and methods. I suggest the authors should explain the method more clearly and the whole procedures to classify the image into such detailed vegetation such that the readers can understand your work well. My major concerns are the below:

Where are the locations of the 12 vegetation species samples did you collect, and how many sites did you collect?

What are the major differences between these vegetation species and what typical features did you use to input into the classifier?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Jan 26;17(1):e0256672. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256672.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

4 Nov 2021

Response to Review Comments

Journal Requirements

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: The manuscript meets all PLOS ONE's style requirements

2. We note that Figure 1, 3, 6, 8, 10 and 12 in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth).

Response: Figure 1 was created by me and was used in a previously peer-reviewed and published work. Nevertheless, I have redesigned another study area map to replace figure 1. Figures 3, 6, 8, 10, and 12 are maps showing different analysis results for this manuscript. The analysis was carried out from data generated from field studies and freely available satellite images, e.g., Landsat, ASTER, and Sentinel II. These images have no restrictions on reuse, sale, or redistribution. They only require that the author include a statement of the data source in their manuscripts. Nevertheless, figures 3, 6, 8, 10, and 12 were also redesigned using a different color symbolization.

3. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [Data on grass species spectral signatures for image classification and Figure 1 (study area map) were taken from one of my published manuscripts. Including this data does not constitute dual publication because this manuscript focuses on developing a section of the previous research by testing and using a different methodology.] Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

Response: Figure 1 was created by me and was used in a previously peer-reviewed and published work. Nevertheless, I have redesigned another study area map to replace figure 1. The reason that the data on grass species spectral signatures for image classification does not constitute dual publication has been included in the cover letter.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter, and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Response: Changes to the data availability statement have been described in the cover letter.

5. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

Response: the abstract in the manuscript and online submission have been amended and are the same.

Specific Response to Reviewer Comments

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author

General Remarks:

A.) The studies related to vegetation species succession are highly useful scientific sector to understand the impact of climate change on ecosystems. However, the main hurdle in this application is that the species succession studies are highly long term studies. Recent advancements in remote sensing data acquisitions yielded high resolution data through with mapping the species is now no more tedious. But the challenge in understanding the species succession is non-availability of high resolution imagery for historic dates. To overcome this challenge, authors have used machine learning techniques.

B.) At the outset, authors should first tell why they used machine learning techniques to do the change detection – viz-a-viz, species identification from the multi-date and multi-platform satellite data. What inspired/motivated and need aspect of using machine learning is to be specified.

Response: The reasons and motivation for using the machine learning method has been added in the manuscript (line 83-92)

C.) Authors have used only Random Forest classifier. Is there any other ML technique available? If so, should be addressed.

Response: The reasons why the only random forest was used above other classifier has been included. Also, other ML techniques have been mentioned (Line 90-92)

D.) Authors failed to explain the reasons for the replacement of species – however, they have simply attributed the reasons to several factors or disturbances (natural or anthropogenic) – This is completely putting vagueness in the article. The enthusiasm kept in the introduction has been lost due to this. Otherwise, this article could have contributed value to the scientific domain.

Response: The factors weren't included because they weren't the focus of the study. Authors only give possible reasons for vegetation succession from literature in the introduction and streamline the focus of the study on accurately understanding spatial data on the succession of grassland vegetation species and communities through mapping and monitoring. Nevertheless, the authors are already working on more detailed research on the reasons for species replacement.

Other Remarks:

1.) Abstract:

a. "The results indicate that ASTER IM has the…" � IM? Also, many times in the manuscript this needs correction (from ASTER IM to ASTER MI)

Response: All ASTER IM have been corrected to ASTER MI

2. If ASTER data is used then why it is not in the title of the article?

Response: ASTER MI has been added to the title.

b.) Introduction Section

a. Authors could give some more information about similar work carried out by other researchers

Response: similar work carried out by other researchers was mentioned in the introduction. Nevertheless, more details of there research have been added to the introduction.

3.) Study Area

a. Authors could elaborate more information about dominant (top 5) grass species (however it was specified as 60 grass species are available.)

Response: The top four dominat spcies have been added to the study area section

4.) Materials and Methods

a. Authors could elaborate more information about dominant (top 5) grass species (however it was specified as 60 grass species are available)

Response: The authors wrote that the spectral library of 12 dominant species was obtained from a previous study and referred to it. The names of these dominant species may be found in the aforementioned paper.

5.) Results and Discussion

a. Authors have abruptly mentioned the accuracy of each sensor – they could have mentioned the process/parameters for deriving the accuracy of each sensor

Response: The erorr matrix and xplaination have been added to the result section

b. Authors should mention the reason for replacement/or species succession for each species independently and categorically – this will add more value to the article

Response: The reason weren't included because they weren't the focus of the study. However, authors give possible reasons for vegetation succession from literature Nevertheless, the authors are already working on a more detailed research on the reasons for species replacement which will be the focus of another article.

6.) Conclusion

a. Now it is known that Sentinel-2 MSI is more superior to other available space-borne sensors. The conclusion section is completely missing the mentioning about machine learning algorithms and its applications in this technical area.

Response: Although the research introduction has already established that Sentinel-2 MSI is more superior to other available space-borne sensors, It has also been added to the conclusion section.

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author

This work used Landsat 7 EMT+, ASTER MI and Sentinel-2 MSI data to map and estimate the changes in vegetation species succession with accuracies more than 70%. This is helpful for understanding the spatial data on the succession of grassland vegetation species and communities and gain knowledge on the ecosystem and ecosystem services South Africa with large areas of grassland. As the authors stated that high-resolution hyperspectral images can give accurate vegetation species, I'd like to see how the authors obtain the 12 types of vegetation species by using the low spectral resolution images from ETM+, ASTER and Sentinel-2, unfortunately, I did not find the way the authors worked out in the section of materials and methods. I suggest the authors should explain the method more clearly and the whole procedures to classify the image into such detailed vegetation such that the readers can understand your work well. My major concerns are the below:

Where are the locations of the 12 vegetation species samples did you collect, and how many sites did you collect?

What are the major differences between these vegetation species and what typical features did you use to input into the classifier?

Response: According to the methodology sections, the spectral signatures of the 12 dominant species were taken from previous research and referred to it. The necessary information on how the fieldwork, image processing, and spectral signature development were documented in that study. Because repeating it would appear like research duplication, the authors didn't want to bring it up again.

In the methodology section, the authors have attempted to make image processing more evident. The locations and number of each vegetation species were determined in a previous study mentioned above. This research produced 100 random samples by combining digital numbers representing spectral data from the results of the previous study with spectral information from images to generate 100 random samples.

The differences between these vegetation species are shown in the spectral reflectance curve in figure 2. The typical features used to input into the classifier was a number of 10 trees, the bands that can easily separate the species (see Figure 2 and Table 1), NDVI, and elevation data. The authors stated all these in the methodology section.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Review Comments MVSS.docx

Click here for additional data file. (25.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Bijeesh Kozhikkodan Veettil

26 Nov 2021

Mapping vegetation species succession in a mountainous grassland ecosystem using Landsat, ASTER MI, and Sentinel-2 data

PONE-D-21-25779R1

Dear Dr. Adagbasa,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Bijeesh Kozhikkodan Veettil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thanks authors' hard work in addressing the problems I concerned. I have no other concerns in the revised version of the manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Bijeesh Kozhikkodan Veettil

12 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-25779R1

Mapping vegetation species succession in a mountainous grassland ecosystem using Landsat, ASTER MI, and Sentinel-2 data

Dear Dr. Adagbasa:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Bijeesh Kozhikkodan Veettil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Review Comments MVSS.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (25.5KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The Google earth Engine scripts that contains all the satellite images used for the analysis, random forest classifier and how the results can be exported out of engine has been cited in the manuscript (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.17125043.v2).

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES