Spatial distribution of mangrove forest species and biomass assessment using field inventory and earth observation hyperspectral data

  • Prem Chandra Pandey
  • Akash Anand
  • Prashant K. SrivastavaEmail author
Original Paper


The objective of this research is to identify species, provide spatial distribution of the species and estimate the biomass in the mangrove Forest, Bhitarkanika India. Mangrove ecosystems play an important role in regulating carbon cycling, thus having a significant impact on global environmental change. Extensive studies have been conducted for the estimation of mangrove species identification and biomass estimation. However, estimation at a regional level with species-wise biomass distribution has been insufficiently investigated in the past because either research focuses on the species distribution or biomass assessment. Study shows that good relationship has been achieved between stem volume (field measured data) and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI) derived from satellite image and further these two indices are employed to estimate the biomass in the study site. Three models- linear, logarithmic and polynomial (second degree) are used to estimate biomass derived from EVI and NDVI. The hyperspectral data (spatial resolution ~ 30 m) is utilised to identify ten mangrove plant species. We have prepared the spatial distribution map of these species using spectral angle mapper. We have also generated mangrove species-wise biomass distribution map of the study site along with areal coverage of each species. The results indicate that the Sonneratia apetala Buch.-Ham. and Cynometra iripa Kostel has the highest biomass among all ten identified species, 643.12 Mg ha−1 and 652.14 Mg ha−1. Our study provided a positive relationship between NDVI, EVI, and the estimated biomass of Bhitarkanika Forest Reserve Odisha India. The study finds a similar results for both NDVI and EVI derived biomass, while linear regression has more significant results than the polynomial (second degree) and logarithmic regression derived biomass. The polynomial is found slightly better than the logarithmic when using the EVI as compared to NDVI derived biomass. The spatial distribution of species-wise biomass map obtained in this study using both, EVI and NDVI could be used to provide useful information for biodiversity assessment along with the sustainable solutions to different problems associated with the mangrove forest biodiversity. Thus, biomass assessment of larger regions can be achieved by utilization of remote sensing based indices as concluded in the present study.


Biodiversity Species distribution Mangrove Biomass Hyperspectral Field inventory NDVI Regression model 



Authors would like to thanks SERB for providing funding NPDF/2016/002487. Many thanks are extended to the USGS Earth-Explorer for providing the Hyperion data of the case study area, free of charge.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.


  1. Adam E, Mutanga O, Rugege D (2010) Multispectral and hyperspectral remote sensing for identification and mapping of wetland vegetation: a review. Wetl Ecol Manage 18:281–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson RR (1970) Spectral reflectance characteristics and automated data reduction techniques which identify wetland and water quality conditions in the Chesapeake Bay. Third Annual Earth Resources Program 329, Johnson Space Center, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Apan A, Phinn S (2006) Special Feature–hyperspectral remote sensing. J Spat Sci 51:47–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belluco E, Camuffo M, Ferrari S, Modenese L, Silvestri S, Marani A, Marani M (2006) Mapping salt-marsh vegetation by multispectral and hyperspectral remote sensing. Remote Sens Environ 105:54–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boardman JW (1993) Automating spectral unmixing of AVIRIS data using convex geometry conceptsGoogle Scholar
  6. Brovkina O, Zemek F, Fabiánek T (2015) Aboveground biomass estimation with airborne hyperspectral and LiDAR data in Tesinske Beskydy Mountains. Beskydy 8:35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown S (1997) Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropical forests: a primer. Food & Agriculture Organisation, RomeGoogle Scholar
  8. Buddenbaum H, Schlerf M, Hill J (2005) Classification of coniferous tree species and age classes using hyperspectral data and geostatistical methods. Int J Remote Sens 26:5453–5465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chacko V (1965) A manual on sampling techniques for forest surveys. Publications Manager, DelhiGoogle Scholar
  10. Cochrane M (2000) Using vegetation reflectance variability for species level classification of hyperspectral data. Int J Remote Sens 21:2075–2087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Demuro M, Chisholm L (2003) Assessment of Hyperion for characterizing mangrove communities. In: Proceedings of the 12th JPL AVIRIS airborne earth science workshop, Pasadena, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. Dennison WC, Orth RJ, Moore KA, Stevenson JC, Carter V, Kollar S, Bergstrom PW, Batiuk RA (1993) Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation: habitat requirements as barometers of Chesapeake Bay health. Bioscience 43:86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gong P, Pu R, Biging GS, Larrieu MR (2003) Estimation of forest leaf area index using vegetation indices derived from Hyperion hyperspectral data. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 41:1355–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Govender M, Chetty K, Bulcock H (2007) A review of hyperspectral remote sensing and its application in vegetation and water resource studies. Water Sa. Google Scholar
  15. Harvey K, Hill G (2001) Vegetation mapping of a tropical freshwater swamp in the Northern Territory, Australia: a comparison of aerial photography, Landsat TM and SPOT satellite imagery. Int J Remote Sens 22:2911–2925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Held A, Ticehurst C, Lymburner L, Williams N (2003) High resolution mapping of tropical mangrove ecosystems using hyperspectral and radar remote sensing. Int J Remote Sens 24:2739–2759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heute A, Liu H, Batchily K, Van Leeuwen W (1997) A comparison of vegetation indices over a global set of TM images for EOS-MODIS. Remote Sens Environ 59:440–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huete A, Didan K, Miura T, Rodriguez EP, Gao X, Ferreira LG (2002) Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sens Environ 83:195–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kokaly RF, Despain DG, Clark RN, Livo KE (2003) Mapping vegetation in Yellowstone National Park using spectral feature analysis of AVIRIS data. Remote Sens Environ 84:437–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuenzer C, Bluemel A, Gebhardt S, Quoc TV, Dech S (2011) Remote sensing of mangrove ecosystems: a review. Remote Sens 3:878–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kumar P, Sharma LK, Pandey PC, Sinha S, Nathawat MS (2013) Geospatial strategy for tropical forest-wildlife reserve biomass estimation. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens 6:917–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kumar P, Pandey PC, Kumar V, Singh BK, Tomar V, Rani M (2015) Efficient recognition of forest species biodiversity by inventory-based geospatial approach using LISS IV sensor. IEEE Sens J 15:1884–1891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin Y, Liquan Z (2006) Identification of the spectral characteristics of submerged plant Vallisneria spiralis. Acta Ecol Sin 26:1005–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lyon JG, McCarthy J (1995) Wetland and environmental applications of GIS. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  25. Macintosh DJ, Ashton EC (2002) A review of mangrove biodiversity conservation and management. Centre for Tropical Ecosystems Research, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  26. May AMB, Pinder J, Kroh G (1997) A comparison of Landsat Thematic Mapper and SPOT multi-spectral imagery for the classification of shrub and meadow vegetation in northern California, USA. Int J Remote Sens 18:3719–3728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCarthy J, Gumbricht T, McCarthy T (2005) Ecoregion classification in the Okavango Delta, Botswana from multitemporal remote sensing. Int J Remote Sens 26:4339–4357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mohanty PK, Panda US, Pal SR, Mishra P (2008) Monitoring and management of environmental changes along the Orissa coast. J Coast Res 24sp2:13–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mutanga O, Skidmore AK, van Wieren S (2003) Discriminating tropical grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) canopies grown under different nitrogen treatments using spectroradiometry. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 57:263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nagler PL, Glenn EP, Huete AR (2001) Assessment of spectral vegetation indices for riparian vegetation in the Colorado River delta, Mexico. J Arid Environ 49:91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Odisha WO (2017) Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary. Odisha Wildlife Organization, Orissa.
  32. Pandey PC, Tate NJ, Balzter H, (2014) Mapping tree species in coastal portugal using statistically segmented principal component analysis and other methods. IEEE Sens J 14(12):4434–4441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pattanaik C, Reddy C, Dhal N, Das R (2008) Utilisation of mangrove forests in Bhitarkanika wildlife sanctuary Orissa. CSSIR, KarnalGoogle Scholar
  34. Petropoulos, G.P., Kalivas, D.P., Georgopoulou, I.A., Srivastava, P.K., 2015. Urban vegetation cover extraction from hyperspectral imagery and geographic information system spatial analysis techniques: case of Athens, Greece. J Appl Remote Sens 9:096088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rani M, Kumar P, Pandey PC, Srivastava PK, Chaudhary B, Tomar V, Mandal VP (2018) Multi-temporal NDVI and surface temperature analysis for Urban Heat Island inbuilt surrounding of sub-humid region: a case study of two geographical regions. Remote Sens Appl 10:163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Research Systems Inc (2000) ENVI tutorials. Research Systems Inc, BloombergGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosso P, Ustin S, Hastings A (2005) Mapping marshland vegetation of San Francisco Bay, California, using hyperspectral data. Int J Remote Sens 26:5169–5191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roy P, Ravan SA (1996) Biomass estimation using satellite remote sensing data—an investigation on possible approaches for natural forest. J Biosci 21:535–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmidt K, Skidmore A (2003) Spectral discrimination of vegetation types in a coastal wetland. Remote Sens Environ 85:92–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shanker K (2005) Biodiversity of Mangrove Ecosystems. Hindustan Publishing Corporation, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  41. Singh SK, Srivastava PK, Gupta M, Thakur JK, Mukherjee S (2014) Appraisal of land use/land cover of mangrove forest ecosystem using support vector machine. Environ Earth Sci 71:2245–2255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Srivastava PK, Mehta A, Gupta M, Singh SK, Islam T (2015) Assessing impact of climate change on Mundra mangrove forest ecosystem, Gulf of Kutch, western coast of India: a synergistic evaluation using remote sensing. Theor Appl Climatol 120:685–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Todd PA, Ong X, Chou LM (2010) Impacts of pollution on marine life in Southeast Asia. Biodivers Conserv 19:1063–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tomar V, Kumar P, Rani M, Gupta G, Singh J (2013) A satellite-based biodiversity dynamics capability in tropical forest. Electron J Geotech Eng 18:1171–1180Google Scholar
  45. Tucker CJ (1979) Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring vegetation. Remote Sens Environ 8:127–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vaiphasa C, Skidmore AK, de Boer WF, Vaiphasa T (2007) A hyperspectral band selector for plant species discrimination. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 62:225–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yang X (2007) Integrated use of remote sensing and geographic information systems in riparian vegetation delineation and mapping. Int J Remote Sens 28:353–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yang C, Everitt JH, Fletcher RS, Jensen RR, Mausel PW (2009) Evaluating AISA + hyperspectral imagery for mapping black mangrove along the South Texas Gulf Coast. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 75:425–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentBanaras Hindu UniversityVaranasiIndia
  2. 2.Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering, School of Natural SciencesShiv Nadar UniversityDadriIndia
  3. 3.Centre for Land Resource ManagementCentral University of JharkhandRanchiIndia

Personalised recommendations