欢迎访问《生态学杂志》官方网站,今天是

生态学杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (10): 3519-3530.doi: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.202610.017

• 技术与方法 • 上一篇    

基于无人机遥感的免耕补播草地地上生物量估算

郜护国1,吴皓阳3,王敬龙2,蔡小斌1,严双3,曹佳宇3,丁嘉瑞3,邱晓庆3,王军强2,3*   

  1. (1甘肃省农业工程技术研究院, 兰州 730030; 2西藏自治区农牧科学院草业科学研究所, 拉萨 850000; 3西华师范大学生态研究院, 四川南充 637002)
  • 出版日期:2026-10-10 发布日期:2027-04-12

Estimation of aboveground biomass in no-till reseeded grasslands based on UAV remote sensing.

GAO Huguo1, WU Haoyang3, WANG Jinglong2, CAI Xiaobin1, YAN Shuang3, CAO Jiayu3, DING Jiarui3, QIU Xiaoqing3, WANG Junqiang2,3*   

  1. (1Gansu Academy of Agri-Engineering Technology, Lanzhou 730030, China; 2Institute of Pratacultural Science, Tibet Academy of Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Sciences, Lhasa 850000, China; 3Institute of Ecology, China West Normal University, Nanchong 637002, Sichuan, China).

  • Online:2026-10-10 Published:2027-04-12

摘要: 本研究以典型高寒区免耕补播草地为对象,基于无人机多光谱影像结合地面实测样本,构建多元线性回归(MLR)、弹性网络回归(ElasticNet)、随机森林回归(RF)和支持向量回归(SVR)模型,比较不同模型类型(线性与非线性)及数据组织方式(按草地类型分类建模、整体样本建模和整体样本+草地类型哑变量建模)下的草地地上生物量(AGB)估算效果。结果表明,不同草地类型样本异质性明显,植被覆盖度(FVC)与AGB之间的响应关系随草地类型而异。分类建模中,不同草地类型无统一适用的最优模型,在各草地类型比较中,高寒草甸以ElasticNet表现较好(测试集R2=0.808),高寒荒漠草原以MLR较优(R2=0.728),高寒草原各模型精度整体偏低(R2<0.40)。整体样本建模时,各模型测试集R2为0.519~0.573,虽然SVR表现相对较优(R2=0.573),但总体仍弱于分类建模结果;加入草地类型哑变量后,各模型精度均未提升。分类建模中线性模型整体较非线性模型更稳定,而在整体样本建模中,二者精度差距缩小,其中SVR表现出相对优势。变量贡献率分析表明,归一化植被指数(NDVI)、绿光归一化植被指数(GNDVI)和FVC是整体样本AGB估算的主要解释变量,但不同草地类型关键变量存在差异。研究表明,样本异质性和数据组织方式是影响高寒区免耕补播草地AGB估算精度的关键因素,分类建模较整体建模和哑变量处理更具针对性与稳定性。


关键词: 高寒草地, 草地遥感, 多光谱影像, 植被指数, 回归模型

Abstract: Based on UAV multispectral imageries combined with field-measured samples from typical no-till reseeded grasslands in alpine regions, four models, including multiple linear regression (MLR), ElasticNet, random forest (RF), and support vector regression (SVR), were developed to compare the performance of aboveground biomass (AGB) estimation under different model types (linear and nonlinear models) and data organization strategies (classification modeling by grassland type, overall sample modeling, and overall sample modeling with grassland-type dummy variables). The results showed that sample heterogeneity was evident among different grassland types, and that the relationship between fractional vegetation cover (FVC) and AGB varied with grassland type. In the classification modeling, there was no single optimal model for all grassland types. For each grassland type, ElasticNet performed best for alpine meadow grassland (test R2=0.808), whereas MLR was optimal for alpine desert grassland (R2=0.728). The performance of all models was generally poor for alpine grassland (R2<0.40). For the overall sample modeling, the test R2 values of all models ranged from 0.519 to 0.573. Although SVR showed better performance (R2=0.573), the overall results were inferior to those of classification modeling. The performance of all models did not improve after introducing dummy variables for grassland type. Under the classification modeling strategy, linear models were generally more stable than nonlinear ones. In contrast, under the overall sample modeling strategy, the performance gap between the two types of models narrowed, with SVR showing a relative advantage. Variable contribution analysis indicated that the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Green Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (GNDVI), and FVC were the main explanatory variables for AGB estimation in the overall sample set, though key variables differed among grassland types. These findings demonstrate that sample heterogeneity and data organization strategy are key factors affecting the accuracy of AGB estimation for no-till reseeded grasslands in alpine regions. The classification modeling is more targeted and stable than overall modeling and dummy-variable treatment.


Key words: alpine grassland, grassland remote sensing, multispectral imagery, vegetation index, regression model