Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 42–49 | Cite as

Landsat based distribution mapping of high-altitude peatlands in Hindu Kush Himalayas — a case study of Broghil Valley, Pakistan

  • Ahmad KhanEmail author
  • Ahmad Said
  • Imran Ullah


In the alpine regions of Hindu Kush, Himalayas and Karakorum, climatic and topographic conditions can support the formation of peat, important for the livelihood of the local communities, and ecological services alike. These peatlands are a source of fuel for the local community, habitat for nesting birds, and water regulation at source for rivers. Ground-based surveys of high-altitude peatlands are not only difficult, but also expensive and time consuming. Therefore, a method using cost-effective remote sensing technology is required. In this article we assessed the distribution and extent of high-altitude peatlands in a 2000 ha area of Broghil Valley using Landsat 8 data. The composite image was trained using a priori knowledge of the area, and classified into peatland and non-peatland land covers using a supervised decision tree algorithm. The Landsat-based classification map was compared with field data collected with a differential GPS. This comparison suggests 82% overall accuracy, which is fairly high for high altitude areas. The method was successfully applied and has the potential to be replicated for other areas in Pakistan and the high-altitude regions of the neighbouring Asian countries.


Peatland distribution Chitral Qurumbar Wakhi Hindu Kush Yarkhun 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arvidson T, Gasch J, Goward SN (2001) Landsat 7’s long-term acquisition plan — an innovative approach to building a global imagery archive. Remote Sensing of Environment 78: 13–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bond P, Campbell KM, Scott TM (1986) An overview of peat in Florida and related issues. State of Florida, Department of Natural Resource Management and Bureau of Geology; Special Publication No. 27: 151.Google Scholar
  3. Biancalani R, Avagyan A (2014) Towards climate-responsible peatlands management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. p 100.Google Scholar
  4. Breiman L (1996) Bagging predictors. Machine Learning 24: 123–140Google Scholar
  5. Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CJ (1984) Classification and Regression Trees. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL. p 368.Google Scholar
  6. Bwangoy J-RB, Hansen MC, Potapov P, et al. (2013) Identifying nascent wetland forest conversion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Wetlands Ecology and Management 21(1): 29–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chander G, Markham BL, Helder DL (2009) Summary of current radiometric calibration coefficients for Landsat MSS, TM, ETM+, and EO-1 ALI sensors. Remote Sensing of Environment 113: 893–903. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christopherson RW (2000) Geosystems: An Introduction to Physical Geography. 4th Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Canada. p 626.Google Scholar
  9. Cihlar J (2000) Land cover mapping of large areas from satellites: status and research priorities. International Journal of Remote Sensing 21(6–7): 1093–1114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark D (2008) The origins and development of peat industry in Ireland. Peatlands International 1: 12–15.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper DJ, Wolf EC, Colson C, et al. (2018) Alpine peatlands of the Andes, Cajamarca, Peru. Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research 42(01): 19–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dijk AV, Hussein MH (1994). Environmental profile of North-West Frontier Province Pakistan. The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and IUCN Pakistan, Islamabad.Google Scholar
  13. Frisch W, Mesched M, Blakey T (2011) Plate Tectonics: Continental Drift and Mountain Building. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. p 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gary MR, McAfee Jr, Wolf CL (eds.) (1974) Glossary of Geology. American Geological Institute, Alexandria, VA. p 805.Google Scholar
  15. Hansen MC, Loveland TR (2012) A review of large area monitoring of land cover change using Landsat data. Remote Sensing of Environment 122: 66–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen MC, Dubayah R, DeFries R (1996) Classification trees: An alternative to traditional land cover classifiers. International Journal of Remote Sensing 17(5): 1075–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hreibljan JA, Cooper DJ, Sueltenfuss J, et al. (2015) Carbon storage and long-term rate of accumulation in high-altitude Andean peatlands of Bolivia. Mires and Peat 15: 1–14.Google Scholar
  18. Ives JD, Messerli B (1989) The Himalayan Dilemma: Reconciling development and conservation. Routledge, New York. p 324.Google Scholar
  19. Joosten H, Tapio-Bistrom M, Tol S (2012) peatlands — guidance for climate change mitigation through conservation, rehabilitation and sustainable use (2nd ed.). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. p100.Google Scholar
  20. Khan A, Said A (2012) Wetlands Management Plan for Broghil National Park. Pakistan Wetlands Program, Islamabad. p 68.Google Scholar
  21. Khan A, Hansen CM, Potapov P, et al. (2016) Landsat-based wheat mapping in the heterogeneous cropping system of Punjab, Pakistan. International Journal of Remote Sensing 37: 1391–1410. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Khan A, Said A, Hamid A (2010) Socio-economic profile of selected communities in the CIWC and NAWC Pakistan. Pakistan Wetlands Program and GE4DE, ILO, Islamabad.Google Scholar
  23. Kumaran NK, Padmalal D, Limaye RB, et al. (2016) Tropical Peat and Peatland Development in the Floodplains of the Greater Pamba Basin, South-Western India during the Holocene. PLoS ONE 11(5): 1–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lafleur PM, Moore TR, Roulet NT, Frokling S (2005) Ecosystem respiration in a cool temperate bog depends on peat temperature but not water table. Ecosystems: 619–629.Google Scholar
  25. Laiho R (2006) Decomposition in peatlands: Reconciling seemingly contrasting results on the impacts of lowered water levels. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 38: 2011–2024. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ning W (2012) Conservation of High Altitude Peatlands in the Greater Himalayas. In, Conference presentation at Ramsar COP 11 (p.11). Bucharest, July 10, 2012,: Ramsar Secretariate. Avialable online at:
  27. Parish F, Sirin A, Charman D, et al. (2008) Assessment on peatlands, biodiversity and climate change. Global Environment Center, Kuala Lumpur and Wetlands International, Wageningen. p 179.Google Scholar
  28. Potapov PV, Turubanova SA, Hansen MC, et al. (2012) Quantifying Forest cover loss in Democratic Republic of the Congo 2000–2010 with Landsat ETM Plus data. Remote Sensing of Environment 122: 106–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prest VK (1970) Quaternary Geology of Canada. In: Douglas RJW (ed.), Geology and Economic Minerals of Canada, Geological Survey of Canada. pp 675–764.Google Scholar
  30. Rafae U (2015) An overview of Broghil Valley CCA Project Jurisdiction. In: IADC Inc presentation online at:
  31. Ranhotra PS and Kar R (2011) Palynological study of glacio-geomorphic features and its relevance to Quaternary palaeoclimate and glacial history. Current Science 100(5): 641–647.Google Scholar
  32. Ripley BD (1996) Pattern Recognition and Neural Networlds. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shah KA, Ahmad H (2013) Peatlands of Broghil national park, Pakistan: human use and management strategy. In: Ning W, et al. (eds.), High-Altitude Rangelands and their Interfaces in the Hindu Kush Himalayas. Special Publication, Kathmandu, Nepal: International Center for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). pp 137–145.Google Scholar
  34. Shrestha DP, Zinck JA (2001) Land use classification in mountainous areas: integration of image processing, digital elevation data and field knowledge (application to Nepal). International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 3: 78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stehman SV, Czaplewski RL (1998) Design and analysis for thematic map accuracy assessment: Fundamental principles. Remote Sensing of Environment 64: 331–344. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tarnocai C, Stolbovoy V (2006) Northern Peatlands: their characteristics, development and sensitivity to climate change. In: Martini IP, Cortizas A, Chesworth M (eds.) Peatlands: Evolution and Records of Environmental and Climate Changes. Elsevier, Amsterdam. pp 17–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tokola T, Lofman S, Erkkila A (1999) Relative calibration of multitemporal landsat data for forest cover change detection: Remote Sensing of Environment 68: 1–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ullah I, Khan A (2010) Organic matter contents in selected peatland and wetlands of Pakistan. The role of water level. BALWOIS: 1–10Google Scholar
  39. UNDP Pakistan (2002) Indus dolphin. Documentary by UNDP Pakistan, Islamabad and WWF Pakistan. U.S. Department of Energy 1979 Peat-Prospectus: United States Department of Energy, Division of Fossil Fuel Processing, Washington D.C. p 79.Google Scholar
  40. Xie YC, Sha ZY, Yu M (2008) Remote sensing imagery in vegetation mapping: a review. Journal of Plant Ecology 1: 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geographical SciencesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.True Green OfficePlymouthUSA
  3. 3.Departments of Paediatrics and BiochemistryUniversity of Texas, Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations