Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physics and Chemistry of the Earth

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pce

Soil salinity mapping in Everglades National Park using remote sensing T

techniques and vegetation salt tolerance☆
Fahad Khan Khadima, Hongbo Sub,∗, Lina Xuc, Jing Tiand
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Connecticut, 38 W Park Street, Willimantic, CT, 06226, USA
b
Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatics Engineering, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, 33433, USA
c
Institute of Geophysics and Geomatics, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China
d
Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Everglades National Park (ENP) is a hydro-ecologically enriched wetland with varying salinity contents, which is
Everglades national park a concern for terrestrial ecosystem balance and its nearby urban sustainability. In this study, spatio-temporal soil
Remote sensing salinity maps are created using remote sensing techniques, coupled with literature review to understand vege-
Geographic information system tation salt tolerance properties, and field assessments entailing insitu electric conductivity (EC) measurements.
Soil salinity mapping
The mapping first entailed the execution of a supervised machine learning technique—the maximum likelihood
Land cover classification
classification algorithm—to delineate seven vegetation-based land cover classes for the area, namely, mangrove
forest, mangrove scrub, low-density forest, sawgrass, prairies and marshes, barren lands with woodland ham-
mock and water, for the years 1996, 2000, 2006, 2010 and 2015. The classifications for 1996–2010 yielded
accuracies of 82%–94%, and the 2015 classification was supported through ground truthing. Afterwards, EC
tolerance thresholds for each vegetation class were established, which yielded soil salinity maps comprising four
soil salinity classes—i.e., the non- (EC = 0–2 dS/m), low- (EC = 2–4 dS/m) and high-saline (EC 4 dS/m)
areas. The soil salinity maps visualized the spatial distribution of soil salinity with no significant temporal
changes. Furthermore, insitu EC measurements carried out at 23 sampling sites covering all land cover classes
mostly validated (91% samples were tested within range) the estimated soil salinity ranges for the latest dis-
tribution. The approach of using land cover classes to sense salinity ranges in an urban-proximal ecosystem is
pragmatic and application oriented, attributing to novel and useful study upshots considering the diversifying
ecological context.

1. Introduction
The South Florida Everglades is a vast subtropical wetland with a
globally unique hydro-ecology, and is designated as an International
Biosphere Reserve and a wetland of International Importance (Davis
and Ogden, 1994). Since the start of 20th century, many anthropogenic
activities and natural disturbances have led to significant alterations to
existing natural hydrologic patterns, ecosystem balance, biogeochem-
ical and urban environmental sustainability, which attributed to con-
tinuous saltwater intrusion from bay areas, yielding soil salinity pol-
lution. Soil salinity often causes other soil degradation phenomena such
as soil dispersion, soil nutritional change, soil erosion, soil structure
destruction, and some urban environmental issues (Metternicht and
Zinck, 2003; Shober, 2009). Fluctuating salinity inside the Everglades
have shaped up variations in vegetation type—e.g., morphing a cover of
mangroves near the coastline, centering the sawgrass like freshwater
indicative species. Driven by these, it was attempted in this research to
create a local soil salinity dataset for the Everglades National Park
(ENP) area using a passive-to-active approach in which comprehensive
vegetation-based land cover classes were first delineated, and then
using literature driven understanding on threshold soil salinity ranges
for each vegetation, salinity maps were developed and validated
through insitu sensor deployment.
Making an assessment of land cover is a core field in remote sensing
applications (King, 2002; Foody, 2002), and it is regarded as a funda-
mental variable of the physical environment's impact on ecological
systems (Foody, 2002; Vitousek, 1994). Several studies have shown that
SPOT and Landsat images provide good distinctions of vegetative land
cover classes (Ramsey and Jensen, 1996; Laba et al., 1997;
Rasolofoharinoro et al., 1998; Aschbacher et al., 1995). There have also

☆
Research Focus: Surface and sub-surface hydrology, geomatics and remote sensing.
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fahad.khadim@uconn.edu (F.K. Khadim), suh@fau.edu (H. Su), silvaxu@sina.com (L. Xu), Tianj.04b@igsnrr.ac.cn (J. Tian).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2019.01.004
Received 25 September 2018; Received in revised form 3 December 2018; Accepted 3 January 2019
Available online 07 January 2019
1474-7065/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F.K. Khadim et al.
Fig. 1. Base map of the study area, Everglades National Park (ENP).
been attempts to use aerial photography to monitor high-resolution
vegetation succession (Lucas et al., 2000). The use of radar technologies
has been a useful innovation in delineating hydrogeological and
structural features in the ENP area (Aschbacher et al., 1995; Wdowinski
et al., 2004; Kasischke et al., 2003; Bourgeau-Chavez et al., 2005;
Proisy et al., 1996; Held et al., 2003). Radar data is also used in deli-
neation of flood zones in different forest canopies; however, the process
falls short in dense areas (Held et al., 2003; Proisy et al., 2000; Wang
and Imhoff, 1993). Models to identify scattering mechanisms and di-
rectly estimate the physical parameters of vegetation classes have also
been developed (Proisy et al., 2000; Wang and Imhoff, 1993). More-
over, the mapping of vertical vegetation depths and structure has also
been carried out using radars (Mougin et al., 1999) and digital elevation
models (Simard et al., 2006). In addition to inspect land covers, there
are also studies using remote sensing to relate vegetation cover changes
with soil salinity (Allbed et al., 2014a, 2014b, 2017; Allbed and Kumar,
2013). Allbed et al. (2014b) carried out a modelling of the spatial
variation of salinity, using regression techniques between soil salinity
indices and IKONOS image's band reflectance. In another study, Allbed
et al. (Allbed et al., 2017) analyzed normalized difference vegetation
index (NDVI) values and salinity index properties to monitor changes in
soil salinity and vegetation cover from multispectral images. Mitra and
32
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50
Karmaker (Mitra and Karmaker, 2010) carried out mangrove mapping
in the Sundarbans and attempted to draw linkages of mangrove extent
and salinity ingress. However, these studies have focused more on
modelling specific salinity properties with vegetation characteristics,
rather developing spatio-temporally distributed soil salinity maps.
The detrimental effects of salt on plants are a consequence of both
water deficit resulting in osmotic stress and effects of excess sodium
ions on critical biochemical processes (Wyn Jones and Johnson, 1981).
Typically, plant root cell membranes allow water to pass through,
however, prevent salt from entering, making it difficult for saline soils
to hydrate plant roots. Most landscape plants’ salt tolerance depend on
the amount and duration of exposure as well as the concentration of
salt, in a way that the higher the amount of salt in the soil, the greater
the impact on the plants (Appleton et al., 2009). Upon realization of
this linkage between soil salinity and associated vegetation cover, the
novel concept of using vegetation classification of the ENP area to
produce soil salinity maps was framed. The objective was to carry out
soil salinity mapping for the ENP area using remote sensing techniques
through coupling vegetation information with insitu salinity values. Up
to the timeline of this research, no study has specifically engaged re-
mote sensing techniques to construct salinity maps for such an urban
influenced ecologically sensitive region covering a diversified series of
F.K. Khadim et al.
Fig. 2. Schematic flow diagram illustrating key activities of the research.
vegetation. Another salient significance of the study lies in its simplistic
approach in addressing and overcoming of complex challenges asso-
ciated with remote sensing-based salinity mapping at such spatio-tem-
poral resolution (spatial: 30 m; and temporal: every 5–6 year starting
from 1990). The mapping indicates existing spatio-temporal trends in
soil salinity at the ENP and may be useful owing to its greater geo-
ecological impacts, and the link with urban sustainability; also, the
methodological novelty tied with the process may further interest sci-
entific community. The motivation of this research also serves ongoing
national interest, as the U.S. government has already allocated 7.8
billion dollars for restoring the ecosystems of the Everglades, which is
expected to increase the quantity, quality and timing of the freshwater
reaching the Florida coast and, among other objectives, stabilize or
even increase the freshwater terrestrial habitats in the coming years
(Simard et al., 2006; CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan,
2015). Nevertheless, wetland protection and soil salinity of the ENP
area can be considered as an important environmental issue for the
metropolitan area of Miami.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
The spatial domain of the study is confined within the ENP
boundary (Fig. 1). The ENP has been designated a World Heritage Site,
International Biosphere Reserve, and Wetland of International Im-
portance, which are significant to all people of the world (ebsite
Everglades Na, 2015). From satellite images (Earth Explorer Websi,
2017), the area enclosed by the ENP was estimated as 2410 square
miles (sqm). The area is bounded by Florida Bay and the Florida Keys in
the south, the Gulf of Mexico in the west, the upper Everglades regions
and Lake Okeechobee in the north and the Atlantic Ocean in the east.
The ENP area is also contiguous to the metropolitan area of Miami and
therefore possess substantial urban environmental significance. Fig. 1
provides a base map of the study area, as well as 23 soil sampling lo-
cations randomly selected for insitu EC measurement while validating
the latest soil salinity map.
2.2. Approach
The approach of the study is two-fold: first, the development of land
cover classification maps for 1996, 2000, 2006, 2010 and 2015, and
second, the derivation of soil salinity maps by spatially integrating the
information of the salt tolerance thresholds of each identified vegeta-
tion class with the developed land cover maps. The vegetation classes
used in the study for land cover mapping are inspired and infused from
the detailed vegetation map developed by the Florida Coastal
Everglades and Long Term Ecological Research (FCELTER) for 2000
(lorida Coastal, 2016). Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) images for the
33
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50
said years were collected from USGS database (Earth Explorer Websi,
2017), which followed some preprocessing and supervised machine
learning (maximum likelihood classification algorithm) techniques, in
the ENVI-IDL image processing program. The classification was carried
out using one image at a time rather than selecting a cluster of images
because of the limited availability of clear, cloud-free Landsat data.
Upon inspection, only two Landsat images from each year of 1996,
2000 and 2006 were found to have cloud covers of less than 10%,
whereas for 2010 and 2016, there was only one image from each year.
Because of this and the primary objective of the study to eventually map
soil salinity, a property which takes longer time to be altered naturally
(Wu et al., 2008), the decision of selecting only one image for land
cover classification was made. To further complement the process and
assess the accuracies of the estimations, the derived land cover maps
were compared against the existing macroscale land cover maps from
the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 1992, 2001, 2006 and
2011 (MRLC, 2015). The NLCD maps are also useful because they
provide a spatio-temporal understanding on land use changes, however,
the scope of this research is to delineate land cover classes which are
ecologically sensitive, rather than using the macroscale NLCD maps that
represent changing land use patterns from a mere surficial context.
Afterwards, comprehensive literature review on potential soil sali-
nity clustering was made and the salt tolerance thresholds for different
vegetation classes within the ENP area were identified. A two-tier field
investigation was carried out during the study, the first tier included an
initial examination at selected field sites to perform groundtruthing
following the supervised land cover classification. The second tier
comprised two distinct field surveys under which a total number of 23
soil samples were collected and tested at site to measure the electric
conductivity (EC) to validate the estimated soil salinity ranges of the
latest time frame and its spatial distribution. Fig. 2 shows a schematic
flow diagram that illustrates the key activities of the research.
2.3. Data
The Landsat TM 5 and Landsat OLI 8 images were collected from the
USGS data portal (Earth Explorer Websi, 2017; Data and Tools:, 2016)
for different dates—namely, February 18, 1996; February 14, 2000;
May 4, 2006; November 7, 2010; and February 6, 2015. The TM images
contained six spectral bands—i.e., band 1: blue (0.45–0.52 μm), band 2:
green (0.52–0.60 μm), band 3: red (0.63–0.69 μm), band 4: near-in-
frared (0.76–0.90 μm), band 5: near-infrared (1.55–1.75 μm), and band
7: mid-infrared (2.08–2.35 μm) —as well as a distinct thermal band
(band 6). The Landsat OLI sensor has 11 bands in total, of which bands
2–7 are similar in wavelength and resolution to the Landsat 5 TM sensor
(What are the band de, 2017). The existing 30 m—resolution land cover
classifications were collected for an accuracy assessment from the
NLCD, developed by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Con-
sortium (MRLC) for years 1992, 2001, 2006 and 2011 (MRLC, 2015).
F.K. Khadim et al.
The 1992, 2001 and 2006 classifications have level—I accuracies of
83%, 85% and 84%, respectively (Stehman et al., 2003; and Cover
https://cf), whereas the 2011 classification's accuracy assessment was
still underway during the time of this research (and Cover https://cf).
2.4. Land cover mapping process
2.4.1. Identifying vegetation classes
As discussed above, the land use classes used in the NLCD classifi-
cations are more generic. In addition to these maps, an integrated effort
from South Florida Natural Resources Center, ENP authorities, the
Center for Remote Sensing and Mapping Science at the University of
Georgia, Big Cypress National Preserve and the South Florida Water
Management District developed vegetation classifications containing
forest covers, scrubs, savanna, prairies and marshes, shrublands, exotics
and others (Jones et al., 2002). Both this integrated classification and
the NLCD maps are useful, however, for this study a finer and ecolo-
gically discernible land cover classification was required. The FCELTER
(lorida Coastal, 2016) map is the most detailed vegetation map found
for the ENP area covering a broad set of 12 vegetation classes, a
modification of which led to the selection of seven final vegetation
classes for this study—namely, the mangrove forest, mangrove scrub,
low-density forest, prairies and marshes, sawgrass, barren lands with
hammocks and water. The FCELTER map was carried out for a parti-
cular time, which motivated this study to develop time-series maps
showcasing the temporal variation in addition to the spatial variation of
selected landcover classes. The selected vegetation classes are discussed
in the following paragraphs.
2.4.1.1. Mangrove forest. The mangroves of South Florida are mainly
located inside national parks and other protected areas and are
therefore protected from the direct impact of urbanization (Simard
et al., 2006). Mangrove trees typically expand their ranges when
natural and manmade events decrease freshwater flow from the
Everglades and increase salinities. During the classification, the
mangrove forest coverage was defined as high-density, salt-tolerant
stands of trees, typically with heights over 5 m (MRLC, 2015). The
mangroves in the ENP area include mangrove forest areas covering
black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), white mangrove (Laguncularia
racemosa), red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), mixed mangrove and
buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus). Mangroves are facultative
halophytes—i.e., salt water is not a physical requirement (Bowman,
1917; Egler, 1948). In fact, most mangroves are capable of growing
quite well in freshwater (Teas, 1979). However, mangrove ecosystems
do not develop in strictly freshwater environments, and salinity is
important in reducing competition from other vascular plant species
(Kuenzler et al., 1974). Mangroves accommodate fluctuations and
extremes of water and soil salinity through a variety of mechanisms,
although not all mechanisms are necessarily present in the same species
(Odum et al., 1982). Mangroves can sustain very high salinities, and
several studies indicate that the red mangroves can sustain salinities
around 65 parts per thousand (ppt)1 (Teas, 1979), whereas the black
mangroves can grow at salinities greater than even 90 ppt (MacNae,
1969). Moreover, there are other factors affecting the plants’ salt
tolerance—such as the soil type, temperature, rainfall, humidity, etc.
(Odum et al., 1982).
2.4.1.2. Mangrove scrub. Mangrove scrub areas include the red
(Rhizophora mangle), black (Avicennia germinans), white (Laguncularia
racemosa) and buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus) types as well as high-
1
unit ppt (parts per thousand) refers to the salinity of the surrounding water
condition, which is identical to the grams per liter (g/l) unit—and is defined as
the amount of salts dissolved in a thousand units of water (e.g., 1 g of salt
dissolved in 1000 g of water yields a solution with 1 ppt salinity).
34
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50
density scrub vegetation. Mangrove scrubs were distinguished from
mangrove forests in this study as having relatively lower densities and
heights below 5 m (MRLC, 2015). Simard et al. (2006) carried out a
mangrove vegetation height mapping and inferred that the short
mangroves (termed “mangrove scrub” in this study) usually range
between 2 and 6 m in height and are located inward compared to the
high mangroves (termed “mangrove forest” in this study). The word
“scrub” has been used in this study to denote reduced development
under marginal conditions (Schaeffer-Novelli et al., 2000). There have
not been studies to distinguish the salt tolerance of scrubs from large
mangrove trees; however, there are studies (Pezeshki et al., 1990;
McKee, 1996) indicating that there are influencing factors that limit the
growth of mangrove scrubs into trees. The most dominating factors are
the reduced nutrient availability and other marginal conditions
experienced in scrubs. Laboratory studies have suggested that
mangrove growth differs in response to nutrient enrichment (Pezeshki
et al., 1990; McKee, 1996). Flowers et al. (1977) carried out a detailed
investigation, based on laboratory tests, on the relationships of plant
growth and salinity concentrations, and inferred that the salinity
concentrations inversely affect plant growth for a particular plant
species in optimum surroundings, meaning that the more the increase
in the optimum salinity, the lower the plant growth. Based on this
information, it has been inferred that one of the major reasons for the
dominance of mangrove scrub, with its reduced density and size, inside
the ENP boundary may be the reduction in salinity, which, as discussed
above, limits nutrients and restricts plant growth. Another notable
observation was made about the landscape of scrub plants and the
surrounding physiography. The scrub regions were dominated by
inundated sloughs and water bodies, which provide substantial
freshwater recharge into the nearby areas during rainfall. This may
be another factor limiting the soil salinity contents in these regions.
Because of these issues, the optimum salinity condition for mangrove
scrub may be slightly less than the high-salinity conditions considered
for mangrove trees.
2.4.1.3. Sawgrass. Sawgrass (Cladium jamicense), which is a common
characteristic plant species covering the largest extent of the ENP area,
constitutes about 65–70% of the total freshwater marshes (Steward and
Ornes, 1975). Sawgrass is a rhizomatous, perennial sedge, rather than a
grass, and can be of both long (1–3 m) and short (< 1 m) types (Davis
and Ogden, 1994). The areas identified as sawgrass included areas
covered with freshwater—indicative grass vegetation along the central
and north-central regions of ENP, areas dominated by perennial
herbaceous vegetation (vegetative cover of greater than 80%) and
areas with periodically saturated or water covered soil extents.
Sawgrass is a freshwater indicator and cannot grow on saline soils
(Miao, 2004).
2.4.1.4. Prairies and marshes. Prairies (both wet and marl types) were
another species considered along with the sawgrass, that constitute the
freshwater marshlands in the Everglades. Prairies exist in the east and
west margins of the Shark River Slough and Taylor Slough, where the
bedrock elevations are higher and the hydroperiods are shorter (Davis
and Ogden, 1994). This land cover class included both prairies and
marshes, which are areas frequently exchanged with the areas of
sawgrass cover—with dominating extents (over 80% vegetation
cover) of emergent herbaceous vegetation—and marsh wetlands.
Similar to the sawgrass type discussed in the previous paragraph,
prairies are also freshwater indicators and cannot be sustained in saline
environments.
2.4.1.5. Barren lands with woodland hammocks. Upon a visual
inspection of satellite images, a series of rough patches were observed
along the north-central regions of the ENP. These areas are mainly
barren lands without much vegetation, and they are occasionally
covered by woodland forest. The hammock areas, both native and
F.K. Khadim et al.
nonnative, remain interspersed by freshwater sawgrass as well as
prairies. During classification, the barren lands were identified as
land without dominant vegetation or open canopy. The areas
included the existence of occasional woodland hammock trees, with
less than 15% of total cover. The lands are freshwater regions, typically
at a higher elevation, and are not subjected to any tidal flooding
inundations.
2.4.1.6. Low-density forest. The low-density forest classes included the
pines (Pinus elliottii var. densa), palms, mixed cypress and exotics with
heights above 5 m. The cluster was comprised of deciduous, evergreen
and mixed forest covers with more than 75% vegetation but with higher
canopy coverage in comparison with mangroves. The low-density
exotic species are likely to be sustained in minor salinity ranges, most
likely in between the freshwater indicator species (prairies and
marshes, sawgrass, hammocks) and marine coastal mangroves.
2.4.1.7. Water. The class entitled “water” included areas of all
distinguishable open water sources. As per the definition in NLCD
(MRLC, 2015), water contents may be accompanied by less than 25%
cover of vegetation and soil. The major share of water inside the ENP
area comprises the Florida Bay area as well as other water courses in the
form of lakes, sloughs and ponds The multispectral Landsat images
provide good accuracy in detecting the aerial extents of water bodies
(Frazier and Page, 2000), and the maximum likelihood algorithm has
been identified as a useful tool for the process in many studies
(Manavalan et al., 1993; Lee et al., 1995; Blackman et al., 1995;
Kingsford et al., 1997; Brady et al., 1999). The identified areas of water
content were removed from the study area during the soil salinity
mapping.
2.4.2. Land cover classification process
Before the actual land cover classification, the images were pre-
processed through the radiometric calibration and atmospheric cor-
rection tools. The radiometric calibration was performed in ENVI-IDL2
to convert the spectral radiance into top-of-atmospheric (ToA) re-
flectance (Equation (1)) for the Landsat TM sensors. The Fast Line-of-
sight Atmospheric Analysis of Spectral Hypercubes (FLAASH) atmo-
spheric correction algorithm was applied to transfer ToA reflectance
into surface reflectance properties (ModuleAtmospher, 2009). FLAASH
starts from a spectral radiance equation at a pixel L to the solar wa-
velength range and flat, Lambertian materials or their equivalents
(Equation (2)).
Ld 2
= .
ESUN sin (1)
A B e testing imageries. The classification was carried out using different
L= + + La .
1 eS 1 eS (2)
Here, L is the radiance, d is the earth-sun distance, ESUN is the solar
irradiance, is the sun elevation in degrees, is the pixel surface re-
flectance, e is an average surface reflectance for the pixel and a sur-
rounding region, S is the spherical albedo of the atmosphere, La is the
radiance back scattered by the atmosphere, A and B are the coefficients
that depend on atmospheric and geometric conditions but not on the
surface.
The land cover classification was then attempted using a supervised
machine learning technique – the maximum likelihood classification
method (Erdas Inc. Erdas Field Gu, 1999; Lu and Weng, 2007). Max-
imum likelihood classification algorithm (Richards, 1999) assumes
normal statistical distribution for each class in each band, and then
calculates a probability for each pixel to belong to the specific class
2
More information can be obtained from https://www.harrisgeospatial.com/
docs/RadiometricCalibration.html.
35
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50
with the highest probability (Equation (3)). The method is a well-
known parametric classifier, with the advantage of taking into account
the variance–covariance within the class distributions (Erdas Inc. Erdas
Field Gu, 1999; Otukei and Blaschke, 2010).
1 1 1
gi (x ) = ln p ( i ) ln i (x mi)T i (x mi ).
(3)
2 2
Here, i is the class, x is the n-dimensional data (n is the number of
bands), p ( i ) is the probability that class i occurs in the image and is
assumed the same for all classes, i is the determinant of the covariance
matrix of the data in class i , and mi is the mean vector.
The selection of the maximum likelihood classifier, over some other
sophisticated classifier algorithms (support vector machine, decision
trees, etc.); was preferred because the objective of the land cover
classification was to come up with a set of realistic and acceptable
vegetation classes that were to be used for soil salinity mapping. The
use of decision trees for classification requires accurate input in-
formation of spectral separability thresholds, also known as the deci-
sion boundaries. In this study, the decision tree classifier could also
accurately identify water, light vegetation (grass) and dense vegetation
(forest areas) as these areas had significant differences in their surface
reflectance thresholds (e.g., water has a very low reflectance in visible
bands, and by using this information, it can be classified easily in a
decision tree algorithm). However, no finer classifications could be
carried out between the different types of forests in consideration
(mangrove trees, scrubs, hammocks) or grass species as the surface
reflectance characteristics of different bands for these areas were si-
milar. This is a reason why the decision trees algorithm was eliminated
from consideration. On the other hand, the support vector machine
algorithm performs better for hyperspectral images (Deilmai et al.,
2014). For multispectral images, both the maximum likelihood classi-
fication and support vector machine algorithms can provide good ac-
curacies when trained properly (Otukei and Blaschke, 2010). However,
because of the limited availability of ground information, established
rule images, and compliance with the objective of the study, which is to
infer salinity variations rather than depict finer land cover character-
istics, the use of the maximum likelihood classifier algorithm was em-
phasized.
To begin with the maximum likelihood classifier algorithm, eight to
ten training polygons were manually selected to best represent each
vegetation class. The selection was made from the best representative
areas of pixels, where a judgment on existing land cover could be made
from visual observations. The areas were selected in a way so that they
were sparsely distributed and represented pixels from all around the
Landsat image. The potential areas with clouds or other atmospheric
disturbances were avoided. Following the training polygon selection,
the maximum likelihood classifier algorithm was executed with the
probability thresholds, and a relatively fair number of classified pixels
were found using a threshold of 5%. The classified image still contained
some unclassified pixels, seemingly because the spectral characteristics
of the training pixels were different from those pixels. In order to
perceive information for such pixels, one field visit was carried out for
visual ground truthing, and contemporary information extracted from
Google Earth images were also used.
2.4.3. Groundtruthing
Groundtruthing was performed to complement the machine learning
based image classification process with field based information and va-
lidation. To verify the land cover assessment and infer information on
unclassified and misclassified pixels, five groundtruthing points were
selected, of which four locations were for visual observations with the
other one being for drone observation. As a follow-up, a field in-
vestigation was carried out by the researchers’ team on November 8,
2016, in the ENP area. One major issue encountered during the field
investigations was the limited accessibility and transportation options
F.K. Khadim et al. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50

Fig. 3. A snap from the study domain showing

the land cover classification from the Landsat
TM image through (a) a visual interpretation of
the color infrared image, (b) initial classification
using an image processing algorithm and (c)
incorporation of the final classification of
ground truthing information. (For interpretation
of the references to color in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the Web version of this
article.)

Fig. 4. Photographs collected from the field investigation of the ENP area showing the (a) low-density forest (cypress), (b) mangrove scrub roots, (c) drone testing
and (d) an aerial photograph captured from the drone observations showing a portion of the mangrove area.

Table 1 unclassified pixels, as illustrated in Fig. 3. The example figure (Fig. 3) is

The vegetation classes and soil salinity ranges defined in this study. used to demonstrate how the process was carried out. The figure does not
No. Land cover class Salt Tolerance EC (dS/m) Soil salinity class
show the entire ENP area, rather a portion of the study area where five of
the total seven land cover classes were found. Fig. 4 shows some pictures
1 Mangrove Forest Tolerant 4 High-saline captured during the field investigation for the ground truthing purpose of
2 Mangrove Scrub the land cover assessment.
3 Low Density Forest Moderately Sensitive 2–4 Low-saline
4 Prairies and Sensitive 0–2 Non-saline
Marshes
5 Sawgrass 2.4.4. Post-classification process
6 Barren lands A series of post-classification steps were carried out in ENVI-IDL3 to
7 Water N/A N/A N/A
clean and soothe the classified images so as to remove noise and iso-
lated pixels. First, the images were sieved and filtered using the “sieve
analysis” and “majority filter” post-classification tools. Afterwards, the
inside the ENP area. To address this problem, a DJI Phantom 3
Professional Quadcopter 4K UHD Video Camera Drone was used at one
location to capture a high-resolution image. The information collected 3
More information can be obtained from https://www.harrisgeospatial.com/
through drone and visual observations helped in classifying most of the docs/ClassificationTools.html.

36
F.K. Khadim et al.
Fig. 5. Vegetative land cover classification map for 1996.
smaller, adjacent class regions were aggregated using the “classification
aggregation” tool with a threshold pixel number of 200. This removed
the isolated pixels with linear dimensions of less than 6 km
(=200*30 m). Therefore, even though the mapping resolution was
30 m (due to the Landsat images’ spatial resolution of 30 m), the
minimum size of the adjacent land cover classes identified in the final
land cover maps was 6 km, and any adjacent classes with lower size
were ignored. The reason for such an aggregation process was that the
primary objective of the study was to produce soil salinity maps and not
to produce high-resolution land cover maps. Therefore, the spatial de-
tails for some locations were compromised in order to generate spatially
consistent soil salinity maps. Soil salinity is not a phenomenon that
fluctuates drastically over time and space but rather a gradually evol-
ving natural process.
2.4.5. Accuracy assessment
Following the image classification and post-classification processes,
the accuracies of the land cover classifications for 1996, 2000, 2006
and 2010 were tested against a set of randomly selected points. To do
37
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50
so, 15 random pixels were identified from each of the seven vegetation
classes (mangrove forest, mangrove scrub, low-density forest, prairies
and marshes, sawgrass, barren lands and water) from each of the
aforementioned years’ images. The identified classes for those pixels
were then tested against the existing classifications in the same pixel
locations from the NLCD classes for 1992, 2001, 2006 and 2011, re-
spectively. Due to the unavailability of information pertaining to any
rule image classification for 2015, or any other relevant years, the ac-
curacy of the land cover classification for 2015 could not be assessed.
However, as the land cover classification for 2015 was supported by
ground truthing attempts laid in the field, as well as through a Google
Earth satellite image observation, the issue could be ignored.
2.5. Salinity assessment framework
The key component of the study was to delineate soil salinity maps
for the years 1996, 2000, 2006, 2010 and 2015. To do so, the developed
land cover classification features and their soil salinity thresholds were
used as inputs. There are some standards for soil salinity classifications,
F.K. Khadim et al. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50

Fig. 6. Vegetative land cover classification map for 2000.

mostly based on the varying extent of electric conductivity (EC) existing Total salinity (ppt) = EC (dS/m) * 0.80; for EC > 5 dS/m (5)
in soils. EC is a common field level indicator of soil salinity measured in
Lamond and Whitney (1992) classified soil into five salinity classes-
units of dS/m, which is correlated with the other conventional total
namely, low (EC = 0–2 dS/m), moderate (EC = 2–4 dS/m), high
salinity unit, ppt. In order to convert values of dS/m to ppt, a site-
(EC = 4–8 dS/m), excessive (EC = 8–16 dS/m) and very excessive
specific relationship needs to be developed either using deterministic or
(EC > 16 dS/m). Miller and Donahue (1995), VRO (Victoria Resources
stochastic approaches (Rhoades and Chanduvi, 1999). The United
Online, 2012) and FAO (Abrol et al., 1988) all used the same classifi-
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in one of their field manuals4
cations but changed the titles for each classification. Miyamoto et al.
provides following two empirical relationships to convert dS/m into ppt
(2004) and Shober (2008) provided different classification thresholds
(Equations (4) and (5)), the latter unit is a representation of total dis-
of soil salinity, providing more emphasis on plant tolerance, and the
solved salts. In this study, EC was used as the soil salinity indicator
thresholds were more locally suited for South Florida. These researchers
considering its better convenience in field measurements (Rhoades and
classified plant tolerance of salinity into five categories, and the EC
Chanduvi, 1999).
thresholds for each category were also different from the other classi-
Total salinity (ppt) = EC (dS/m) * 0.64; for EC between 0.1 and 5 dS/m fications discussed above. The latter classification entailed plant toler-
(4) ance clusters termed as sensitive (EC < 3 dS/m), moderately sensitive
(3–6 dS/m), moderately tolerant (6–8 dS/m), tolerant (8–10 dS/m) and
highly tolerant (> 10 dS/m).
As the soil salinity mapping carried out in this study depended on
4
More information can be obtained from https://prod.nrcs.usda.gov/ the spatial pattern of the existence of different vegetation, the salt
Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_067096.pdf.

38
F.K. Khadim et al.
Fig. 7. Vegetative land cover classification map for 2006.
tolerance-based classifications of different plants were used to map the
soil salinity. And because of the types and numbers of classes identified
in the ENP area, the sensor limitation and the limited accessibility in
the ENP areas, the selection of salinity classes in this study were re-
stricted to three, e.g. non-saline (EC = 0–2 dS/m), low saline
(EC = 2–4 dS/m), and high saline (EC 4 dS/m) soils. The salinity
level classes used in the study have been modified from the classifica-
tions used by Lamond and Whitney (1992), Miller and Donahue (1995),
VRO (Victoria Resources Online, 2012) and FAO (Abrol et al., 1988),
only with some exceptions. The first two salinity classes in this study,
namely, non-saline (EC = 0–2 dS/m) and low saline (EC = 2–4 dS/m)
classes are in accordance with the other established salinity classes as
discussed before. However, due to the poor accessibility inside the
mangrove areas which hampered the insitu data sampling to a con-
siderable extent, and the limitation of the salinity sensor which had an
upper threshold of 4 dS/m, more detailed salinity classifications within
the mangrove areas could not be attempted. Therefore, all the high,
excessive and very excessive classes as labelled by Lamond and Whitney
39
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50
(1992) were merged together to form the high salinity class ( 4 dS/m)
in the study.
Mitra and Karmaker (2010) carried out laboratory tests for the
Sundarban area to infer the EC ranges for mangrove scrub and marshes
of around 3.5–5 dS/m. Because of this, and the proclivity of mangroves
to be sustained in extremely saline conditions (Mitra and Karmaker,
2010; Teas, 1979; MacNae, 1969), the mangrove forest vegetation and
mangrove scrub land cover classes has been classified in the high-saline
(EC 4 dS/m) category. Due to the existence of exotics in the low-
density forest groups and their proclivity to grow in relatively more
saline conditions, as compared to the freshwater sawgrass species, their
salinity class has been assigned as having low-saline values
(EC = 2–4 dS/m), between the high- and non-saline areas. Last, the
sawgrass, prairies and marshes and barren lands with woodland ham-
mocks are known to either be or contain freshwater species, and as
such, their salinity class has been assigned as non-saline (EC = 0–2 dS/
m). The final information on vegetation and soil salinity classes has
been summarized in Table 1, which also shows the relative salt
F.K. Khadim et al.
Fig. 8. Vegetative land cover classification map for 2010.
sensitivity for each vegetation class as well as the EC levels selected for
the study. Moreover, all the soil salinity estimates in this study indicate
the top-soil salinity. Chimney and Goforth (2006) indicated that in the
ENP area the well-drained topsoil may contain layer thickness of up to
30-inch. In order to represent this, soil sampling during field validation
in this study was carried out at 10-inch depth from surface.
2.6. Field validation for estimated salinity
Two separate field investigations dated October 1, 2017, and June
17, 2018, were carried out in the ENP area which yielded the collection
of 23 soil samples and their insitu measurement for EC. Considering the
limited accessibility inside the ENP, the locations were selected pri-
marily based on their proximity from either the nearby roads or the
coast. Also, emphasis was given so as to make sure that the spatial
distribution of the sampling locations covers the entire ENP area, spe-
cifically the spatial variability of vegetation. During all the measure-
ments, a uniform 10-inch hole was dug through the moistest soil spots
available, inside which a portable “Soil Test™ “Direct Soil EC Tester -
40
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50
HI98331” sensor was injected to measure the bulk EC. The upper range
of the sensor was 4 dS/m, with measurement accuracies ranging
from ± 0.05 mS/cm (0.00–2.00 mS/cm), ± 0.30 dS/m (2.00–4.00 dS/
m). Three measurements were taken at each sampling location, and the
mean value was taken into consideration. The soil salinity sampling
locations are already shown in Fig. 1.
3. Land cover mapping
3.1. Land cover classifications for 1996–2015
The spatial distribution of the different categories of selected ve-
getation for the study area, as identified in section 2.4.1, is shown in
Figs. 5–9 below. The maps were produced while undergoing a series of
supervised classification and post-classification steps, thus maintaining
a balance between technical accuracy and pragmatic applicability. As
already discussed, the objective of the study is to carry out indicative
mapping of soil salinity for the ENP area, for which the spatial existence
of isolated pixels having linear dimensions below 6 km (200 pixels),
F.K. Khadim et al. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50

Fig. 9. Vegetative land cover classification map for 2015.

Table 2 located within the Florida Bay. Of all of the distinguishable soil vege-
List of NLCD classes and subsequently matched subclasses (vegetation classes). tation classes, sawgrass-covered areas were found to entail the largest
NLCD Classes within ENP Vegetation classes
vegetation extent among all, covering 440 sqm in areas in the north-
central and center regions of the ENP area. The second most dominant
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands Barren lands, prairies and marshes, sawgrass, vegetative land cover was the mangrove scrubs, covering around 370
low-density forest sqm. The layer of mangrove scrubs was surrounded by a coastal layer of
Woody Wetlands Mangrove forest, mangrove scrub
Deciduous Forest Barren lands, low-density forest
dense mangrove forests, which covered 281 sqm. Furthermore, there
Evergreen Forest Barren lands, low-density forest were around 199 sqm of barren lands, 113 sqm of prairies and marshes
Shrub Prairies and marshes, sawgrass, low-density and around 29 sqm of savanna pine, palm, cypress and other types of
forest low-density forests.
Grasslands Prairies and marshes, sawgrass, low-density
The vegetation map for February 2000 (Fig. 6) produced similar
forest
Water Water results to Fig. 5, with a distinguishable increase of up to 559 sqm in
Developed Space N/A sawgrass extents. This increase was complemented by the reductions of
the spatial extents of barren land and prairies and marsh classes by up
to 126 sqm and 69 sqm, respectively. The low-density forest extents
representing discrete land cover classes, were compromised. remained nearly unchanged (30 sqm). The other salient land cover
For the period of February 1996 (Fig. 5), approximately 959 sqm features-i.e., the mangrove scrub and mangrove forest extents-experi-
(39.8% of total area) of coastal water bodies were found inside the ENP enced moderate increases of up to 393 sqm and 291 sqm, respectively.
area, and the largest share of which was the shallow coastal embayment The land cover mapping for 2006 was carried out for a wet season

41
F.K. Khadim et al. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50

Table 3
Confusion matrix showing the accuracies (%) of the land cover classifications for different years, using random training points.
Selected Class Sample Points Accepted Classes Rejected Classes Accuracy

WW EHW DF/EF S/G W WW EHW DF/EF DS W

Year 1996 82%

Barren lands 15 3 8 4 73%
Prairies and marshes 15 3 10 1 1 87%
Sawgrass 15 7 5 3 80%
Low density forest 15 4 4 3 4 73%
Mangrove scrub 15 12 2 1 80%
Mangrove forest 15 13 2 87%
Water 15 14 1 93%
Year 2000 85%
Barren lands 15 15 100%
Prairies and marshes 15 14 1 93%
Sawgrass 15 11 4 73%
Low density forest 15 4 4 3 4 73%
Mangrove scrub 15 12 3 80%
Mangrove forest 15 15 100%
Water 15 12 2 1 80%
Year 2006 94%
Barren lands 15 15 100%
Prairies and marshes 15 14 1 93%
Sawgrass 15 15 100%
Low density forest 15 5 5 5 100%
Mangrove scrub 15 10 4 1 67%
Mangrove forest 15 13 1 1 87%
Water 15 14 1 93%
Year 2010 92%
Barren lands 15 15 100%
Prairies and marshes 15 14 1 93%
Sawgrass 15 14 1 93%
Low density forest 15 6 4 2 2 1 80%
Mangrove scrub 15 14 1 93%
Mangrove forest 15 14 1 93%
Water 15 15 14 1 93%

WW = Woody Wetlands, EHW = Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands, DF = Deciduous Forest, EF = Evergreen Forest, S = Shrub, G = Grassland, DS = Developed
Space, W = Water.

Table 4
Changes in land cover classes over the years.
LC Class Area in sqm (and in %)

Feb 1996 Feb 2000 May 2006 Nov 2010 Feb 2015

Barren lands 199 (8.3%) 126 (5.3%) 219 (9.1%) 165 (6.9%) 179 (7.4%)
Prairies and marshes 113 (4.7%) 69 (2.9%) 109 (4.5%) 94 (3.9%) 70 (2.9%)
Sawgrass 440 (18.3%) 559 (23.2%) 454 (18.8%) 502 (20.8%) 490 (20.3%)
Low density forest 29 (1.2%) 30 (1.2%) 23 (1.0%) 35 (1.5%) 37 (1.5%)
Mangrove scrub 370 (15.4%) 393 (16.3%) 351 (14.6%) 406 (16.9%) 393 (16.3%)
Mangrove forest 281 (11.7%) 291 (12.1%) 314 (13.0%) 245 (10.2%) 278 (11.5%)
Water 959 (39.8%) 937 (38.9%) 932 (38.7%) 955 (39.6%) 907 (37.6%)
Unclassified 19 (0.8%) 5 (0.21%) 8 (0.3%) 8 (0.3%) 56 (2.3%)
Total 2410 (100%) 2410 (100%) 2410 (100%) 2410 (100%) 2410 (100%)

image (May 2006), in consideration of the overall spectral quality (low
cloud cover and high visual extent) of the image. The land cover classes
for the year 2006 are shown in Fig. 7. The figure shows a significant
conversion of sawgrass areas into barren lands (219 sqm) and prairies
and marshes (109 sqm). The sawgrass areas for 2006 were reduced to
454 sqm. There were significant reductions in low-density forest (23
sqm) and mangrove scrub (351 sqm) areas. Such differences may be due
to the changes in the deciduous types of vegetation. Unlike the man-
grove scrub areas, the other saltwater intrusion indicator species-i.e. the
dense mangrove forest coverage-increased up to 314 sqm.
The vegetation map produced for 2010 (Fig. 8) shows a significant
increase in mangrove scrub areas (406 sqm), as well as freshwater
sawgrass coverage (502 sqm), compared to 2006. An increasing extent
was also found for low-density forest areas (35 sqm). All of the other
land cover classes decreased in their spatial extents compared to the
ones observed in 2006, as prairies and marshes reduced to 94 sqm,
barren lands reduced to 165 sqm and mangrove forests reduced to 245
sqm. In the latest land cover map produced for 2015 (Fig. 9), minor
changes were observed in comparison to 2010. The dense mangrove
forest extent increased up to 278 sqm, whereas the mangrove scrub
areas dropped to 393 sqm. The extent of prairies and marshes reduced
to 70 sqm, whereas the other land cover features remained almost the
same (barren lands covered 179 sqm, sawgrass covered 490 sqm and
low-density forests covered 37 sqm).
3.2. Accuracy assessment: confusion matrix
Following the delineation of the land cover maps for different time
periods over the last 20 years, an attempt was made to assess the ac-
curacy of the supervised classification process in quantifiable terms.

42
F.K. Khadim et al.
Fig. 10. Top-soil (validated at 10-inch depth) salinity map for 1996.
The process entailed comparing the existing land cover classifications of
the NLCD, developed by MRLC (MRLC, 2015). The MRLC produced
land cover classifications for the entire United States, for the years
1992, 2001, 2006 and 2011. The data sets were downloaded and
clipped for the ENP area, and this study's land cover classes were then
compared with the aforementioned classifications from the NLCD. The
land cover classifications developed in this study for 1996, 2000, 2006
and 2010 were compared with the NLCD's classifications for 1992,
2001, 2006 and 2011, respectively. The land cover classification for
2015 could not be compared, as no such land use classifications or
vegetation maps for the same temporal and spatial domain exist.
In order to assess the classification accuracy, a set of 105 sample
locations were randomly generated for each land cover classification,
precisely selecting 15 random points for each of the seven land cover
classes (sawgrass, low-density forest, mangrove forest, mangrove scrub,
barren lands, prairies and marshes and water). For the same locations,
representative land cover samples were extracted from both this study's
land cover classification products as well as from the NLCD's products.
However, the vegetation classes used to define the existing land cover
43
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50
classification for the ENP area differed for this study, compared to the
NLCD classifications. Therefore, the comparison of two land cover
classifications was not straight forward, as the classification inferred in
this study yields more emphasis on the ecological adaptability and
salinity tolerance of vegetation species. On the other hand, the NLCD
classification was more generic and inclusive and was better suited for
describing the land cover patterns of the entire country. Considering the
ecological adaptability and salinity tolerance characteristics of the land
cover classes selected in this study, coupled with the visual inter-
pretation of the NLCD's classifications, a number of the NLCD's classes
were considered to encompass a set of subclasses, which were indeed
the seven land cover classes developed in this study. Table 2 shows that
the sets of vegetation classes matched with the existing NLCD classes.
The table infers that, for example, if the randomly selected training
point falls in the emergent herbaceous wetlands class from the NLCD
classification and, at the same time, falls in either the barren lands,
prairies and marshes, sawgrass, or low-density forest classes from this
study (Table 2), then the location-specific classification will be accepted
as correct. If the point infers any class other than those included in the
F.K. Khadim et al.
Fig. 11. Top-soil (validated at 10-inch depth) salinity map for 2000.
table, the classification will be rejected for that location.
Table 3 provides a confusion matrix that shows the accuracy of each
classified land cover class. The accuracy here is quantitatively defined
as the percentage of total random training points from each land cover
class that yielded acceptable classes from the NLCD classes. The table
shows that the land cover classification carried out in this study yielded
accuracies in the range of 82%–94%, as compared to the NLCD classes.
Albed et al. (Allbed et al., 2017) in their study incurred an overall ac-
curacy of 93% while developing soil salinity maps in the Al Hassa Oasis
in Saudi Arabia, which falls within the range of this study. However, the
mapping accuracies obtained in this research is relatively broad
(82–94%) it is difficult to reason to what extent this accuracy metric is
useful to validate the salinity mapping efforts carried out in this study,
as there might be additional propagation of uncertainties especially due
to the consideration of NCLD classifications having 83%–85% ac-
curacies as references to this study's validation. This error in landcover
mapping could be better investigated with selection of more soil sam-
ples, and the sensitivity testing of land cover classification performance
with partially restraining some of the study assumptions (aggregation of
44
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50
vegetation classes, post-processing and refining of an image, etc.).
However, going into that detail is beyond the scope of this research as
the primary objective of the study was to carry out soil salinity map-
ping, a phenomena which is typically not as much spatially detailed as
land cover classifications used as the indicative inputs. As such, the
obtained land cover classification accuracies for each year's maps were
accepted for the purpose of the study.
3.3. Trend of land cover variation
To investigate the trends of land cover changes over past 20 years,
the spatial extents for each class observed during different time periods
were compared (Table 4). The comparisons showed a stable land cover
characteristic. In each classification, changes were found in spatial
extents, as compared to previous year's extents; however, with no de-
finite trends. ENP is a naturally conserved area, where no major land
cover changes were observed for past 20 years, with the total amount of
salt-tolerant mangrove areas remained around 26–27% in the last 20
years. The freshwater indicative vegetation covers also remained stable.
F.K. Khadim et al.
Fig. 12. Top-soil (validated at 10-inch depth) salinity map for 2006.
4. Soil salinity mapping for ENP
4.1. Soil salinity maps for 1996–2015
Using the existing land covers-the following top-soil salinity maps
were produced for 1996–2015 (Figs. 10–14). During the mapping, the
extents of the prairies and marshes as well as the sawgrass and barren
lands in the central and north-central portions of the ENP area were
considered to have EC values less than 2 dS/m, which categorized the
soil as non-saline. In comparison, the lands with low-density forest
(savanna palm, pines, cypress etc.) were selected as of having little salt
contents (EC values ranging from 2 to 4 dS/m); as such, forest covers
with extended canopy coverage can sustain these minor salinity levels.
This land portion was classified as a low-saline area and was discretely
located in the eastern side of the ENP, adjacent to Miami Dade built-up
area. The two mangrove classes-i.e., the mangrove scrub and the
mangrove forest areas typically indicate high salinity tolerances;
therefore, their extents were converted to the high salinity (EC equal or
above 4 dS/m) group. For the unclassified regions in Figs. 5–9, the most
45
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50
nearby land cover's salinity ranges were used.
The indicative maps visualized the spatial distribution of soil sali-
nity in the ENP area. The existence of high-saline regions encompassed
the entire ENP area, guarding the non-saline and low-saline regions in
the central ENP areas. The position of low-saline areas near the city
built-up areas can be explained by the significant amount of ground
water abstraction so as to meet regular city dwelling requirements,
which can yield water salinity intrusion through the subsurface layers.
Moreover, the existence of the high-saline region can be justified by the
surrounding coastal water bodies and the internal lakes, sloughs and
marshy wetlands. The major source of soil salinity in the Everglades is
the salt contents that are transported through the water courses, leaving
the peripheral soil areas as a high-saline region. The extents of fresh-
water indicative plants and land covers-i.e., the sawgrass, prairies and
marshes and barren lands-can be justified due to their reduced direct
interference with the brackish water system, coupled with the sig-
nificant annual freshwater recharge received from the upper Everglades
areas.
F.K. Khadim et al.
Fig. 13. Top-soil (validated at 10-inch depth) salinity map for 2010.
4.2. Soil salinity trends for 1996–2015
Following the production of the soil salinity maps shown in
Figs. 10–14, an assessment was carried out to analyze the temporal
trends of the coverage of different soil salinity areas. Fig. 15 provides a
comparative assessment of the fluctuations of the total areas for the
different soil salinity classes for the five mapping instances in
1996–2015. The analysis shows that, in the last 20 years, the areas of
different soil salinity level classes have remained fairly stable, experi-
encing minor rises and drops in different temporal estimations. The
values obtained for May 2006 indicate a difference in values from the
other years' observations. This may be because the season in which the
data was collected was different (wet season) compared to that of the
other observations (dry season). This might leave a portion of areas
covered in deciduous trees classified as either sawgrass, prairies and
marshes or barren lands (which are non-saline area-indicators) by the
satellite, thus marking a sudden rise in non-saline areas to 782 sqm.
This was complemented by the reductions of low- and high-saline areas
for that year. For the latest observation in February 2015, the saline
46
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50
areas’ coverage (low and high) increased from the observations made
for November 2010.
Moreover, the soil salinity trends observed in the ENP area have
been stable for all of the observations. This is understandable as the
study area experiences naturally preserved vegetation covers and is free
from abrupt anthropogenic disturbances that might have induced the
higher salinity alterations within the area. Hydrological changes in the
last 100 years have significantly impacted the Everglades (Sklar et al.,
2002; Light et al., 1994). Furthermore, starting in the early 1950s, the
U.S. Army Corps laid a series of construction programs (canals, levees,
dams and pump stations) that threatened the natural balance of the
system (Douglas et al., 2007). Since the mid-1940s, the boundary of the
mixed graminoid-mangrove and caladium communities has shifted in-
land by around 3.3 km, whereas the interior boundary of a low-pro-
ductivity zone appearing white on both black-and-white and CIR photos
moved inland by 1.5 km on average (Ross et al., 2000). The Everglades
is a system that depends not only on the flow of water from Lake
Okeechobee into the park but also on the Kissimmee River, which feeds
the lake. Based on this realization, the Army Corps of Engineers
F.K. Khadim et al.
Fig. 14. Top-soil (validated at 10-inch depth) salinity map for 2015.
Fig. 15. Soil salinity variation from 1996 to 2015.
changed its focus from structural developments to environmental sus-
tainability, thus forming a stable ecological system in recent years. This
was visualized in the soil salinity maps developed in Figs. 10–14, as
there were not many significant salinity intrusion trends observed for
47
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50
the recent soil salinity maps.
4.3. Salinity validation results
Attempting to validate the latest spatial distribution (Fig. 14) of soil
salinity, the 23 soil samples were tested at site during the two field
surveys on October 1, 2017 and June 17, 2018. From the land cover
classifications derived in section 3.1, it can be found that 11 sampling
sites were located within the Non-Saline land cover classes (sawgrass,
prairies and marshes, barren lands with hammock); 3 sites were located
in the Low-Saline land cover classes (Low Density Forest); 7 sites were
located in the High-Saline land cover classes (Mangroves). The insitu
test results show that these 21 sites of the 23 sampling locations have
EC values within the estimated salinity ranges. The two points (ID = 5
& 6) which do not comply with the estimated salinity ranges actually
show a very large bias from the range threshold. These two points were
initially chosen from google earth imageries, but upon field inspection
it was found that the points were located inside coastal wetlands and
the sampling sites were not dry, which might have affected its soil EC
F.K. Khadim et al. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50

Table 5
Field validation of latest estimated soil salinity.
ID Lat Lon Land cover class Measured Salinity (dS/m) Estimated Range (dS/m) Assessment Result

1 25.760 −81.059 Low Density Forest 2.1 2–4 Accepted

2 25.423 −80.679 Low Density Forest 2.3 2–4 Accepted
3 25.429 −80.772 Low Density Forest 2.2 2–4 Accepted
4 25.339 −80.811 Prairies and Marshes 0.4 0–2 Accepted
5 25.137 −80.933 Coastal Wetland 0.2 4 Rejected (observed salinity well below estimated range with about
95% bias)
6 25.141 −80.917 Coastal Wetland 0.5 4 Rejected (observed salinity well below estimated range with about
87.5% bias)
7 25.187 −80.894 Mangrove Forest 4 4 Accepted
8 25.215 −80.850 Mangrove Scrub 4 4 Accepted
9 25.254 −80.798 Mangrove Scrub 4 4 Accepted
10 25.411 −80.542 Sawgrass 0.09 0–2 Accepted
11 25.814 −81.396 Mangrove Forest 4 > =4 Accepted
12 25.832 −81.348 Mangrove Forest 4 > =4 Accepted
13 25.825 −81.333 Mangrove Forest 4 > =4 Accepted
14 25.692 −81.124 Sawgrass 0.15 0–2 Accepted
15 25.788 −81.224 Sawgrass 0.2 0–2 Accepted
16 25.601 −80.937 Barren lands with 0.33 0–2 Accepted
Hammock
17 25.589 −80.978 Barren lands with 0.25 0–2 Accepted
Hammock
18 25.668 −80.730 Barren lands with 0.04 0–2 Accepted
Hammock
19 25.445 −80.607 Prairies and Marshes 0.04 0–2 Accepted
20 25.532 −80.695 Sawgrass (grass land) 0.04 0–2 Accepted
21 25.492 −80.636 Sawgrass (grass land) 0.11 0–2 Accepted
22 25.388 −80.732 Prairies and Marshes 0.47 0–2 Accepted
23 25.214 −80.851 Mangrove Scrub 4 4 Accepted

All soil samples were collected from 10-inch depth, and each value indicates a mean average of three successive insitu measurements at the same location.

values. Nevertheless, about 91% of the samples show good agreement
with estimated results which is a major finding. Table 5 shows detail
information on the sampling locations and salinity assessment valida-
tion result.
5. Discussions and limitations
The vegetation classes and their spatial extents were found to be
consistent in comparison with the existing detailed vegetation map for
2000, which was developed by the Florida Coastal Everglades Long
Term Ecological Research (lorida Coastal, 2016). The soil salinity maps
provided good understanding of the spatial distributions of non-, low-
and high-saline areas in the ENP, even though no significant temporal
salinity variations were found. This phenomenon indicates the ecolo-
gically stable and semi-urbanized nature of the ENP area and the as-
sociated natural preservation attempts of the area by different line
agencies and developers. In the most recent salinity map developed for
2015, areas of about 708 sqm were found to be affected by different
ranges (low and high) of salinity, leaving around 739 sqm as non-saline
areas. During the time series salinity mapping from 1996 to 2015, no
major salinity fluctuations were observed, stressing the importance of
considering larger temporal scales to assess a long-term salinity fluc-
tuation. Usually, the soil salinity beside the coast is higher and Allbed
et al. (2014b) in their study found EC values above 16 dS/m at man-
grove areas beside a gulf coast in Saudi Arabia – qualitatively, this
understanding of having high-saline mangroves along the periphery of
the coastal area was in agreement with the findings of this study.
The remote sensing based analysis in this study included extensive
processing of satellite images, for which data availability is always a
substantial concern. For each of the years of 1996, 2000, 2006, 2010
and 2015, only one or two satellite images were found to be consistent
in terms of acceptable cloud coverage, atmospheric noise and other
detrimental effects. For 2006, no dry season observation could be car-
ried out unlike the other years, as only one image in the month of May
was found to be satisfactory. This is a reason why the use of Landsat
images was limited to only one image per year. Moreover, data sets
collected with the Landsat 1–3 Multispectral Scanner sensors could not
be used in this study due to the inconsistent information associated with
them, and the Landsat 7 ETM sensors were avoided due to the existence
of occasional dark patches in the satellite images. This further limited
the availability and implications of satellite data, which is a funda-
mental input of the soil salinity mapping.
The confusion matrix produced classification accuracies of
82%–94%, which can be a factor of the several pragmatic assumptions
made in the study, coupled with the execution of a post-classification
aggregation process to compromise finer details for considering rela-
tively coarse threshold for feature detection (6 km). The post-classifi-
cation aggregation carried out in this study eliminated the identifica-
tion of smaller (less than 6 km dimension) isolated feature, and hence
compromised finer details during vegetation mapping. However, for
predicting the soil salinity information, which is the primary objective
of the study, this limitation can be overlooked. Soil salinity is a rela-
tively steady and inclusive feature compared to water salinity, and
temporal undulations in soil salinity values are typically less.
In this study, the construction of salinity maps depended on the
extents to which the indicative ranges of soil salinity have been accu-
rately predicted and validated from the relative salt tolerance threshold
ranges of each vegetation class. The method chosen to predict such
thresholds is based on a comprehensive review of literature and is also
constrained by the limited scientific exposure of such salt-threshold
ranges of different vegetation classes being considered, especially for
the ENP area. Due to time-labor constraints, dry weather scarcity, and
overall a limited accessibility inside the ENP areas, field investigations
were largely hampered and delayed. The method deployed in the study
can only predict and visualize salinity ranges and not gradient-based
values for different locations. The EC sensor used for insitu validation
was constrained with an upper measurement threshold of 4 dS/m,
for which further higher and finer salinity clusters could not be de-
veloped or evaluated. The scope of the study was also specifically fo-
cused on developing a data-driven machine learning based method to
imply remote sensing tools to capture indicative estimates for soil
salinity, without scientific considerations for hydro-climatic

48
F.K. Khadim et al.
variabilities and trends of sea level rise which might have influenced
the time series soil salinity mapping. As for future research, information
pertaining to climate change and subsequent predictions regarding sea
level rise can be incorporated with the present analysis to investigate
future soil salinity ingress phenomena, as it is believed that sea level
rise and its potential acceleration with global warming possess the
threats of pushing mangrove forests further inward.
6. Conclusions
Salinity ingress has widespread effects on terrestrial vegetation, but
it also impacts ecosystem balance and contemporary integrated water
resources management pursuits, the latter of which is an integrated tool
to counter climate induced disasters (Khadim et al., 2013). In this re-
search, attempt was made to develop ways to gain more understanding
and develop solutions for these issues by, framing a remote sensing-
based mapping approach for soil salinity; constructing maps of soil
salinity every five years for ENP area; and reflect on the spatio-temporal
patterns of soil salinity in the area. Literature shows that remote sensing
has the potential to determine soil salinity, which is sometimes more
convenient compared to traditional measures (Allbed and Kumar,
2013). The results shown in this study showcase detailed vegetation
classifications for nearly every five-year interval from 1996 to 2015,
which indicate spatial variability of different land cover features in the
ENP area. The vegetation classes were used to infer indicative ranges of
soil salinity values based on an innovative “vegetation-to-salinity con-
version” approach proposed in this study. The soil salinity maps can be
used as the basis of future research in the field of vegetation mapping as
well as soil salinity investigations in the ENP area.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program
of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDA20010302), the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41571356).
Research was also supported by the Walter and Lalita Janke
Innovations in Sustainability Science Research Fund of 2016, through
Florida Center of Environmental Studies, and the National High-tech R
&D Program of China (863 Program Grant 2012AA121303).
References
Abrol, I.P., 1988. In: Yadav, J.S.P., Massoud, F.I. (Eds.), FAO Salt-Affected Soils and their
Management. FAO, Rome.
Allbed, A., Kumar, L., 2013. Soil Salinity Mapping and Monitoring in Arid and Semi-Arid
Regions Using Remote Sensing Technology: A Review. Adv. Rem. Sens. 2, 373–385.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ars.2013.24040.
Allbed, A., Kumar, L., Aldakheel, Y.Y., 2014a. Assessing soil salinity using soil salinity and
vegetation indices derived from IKONOS high-spatial resolution imageries:
Applications in a date palm dominated region. Geoderma 230–231, 1–8. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.03.025.
Allbed, A., Kumar, L., Sinha, P., 2014b. Mapping and modelling spatial variation in soil
salinity in the Al Hassa Oasis based on remote sensing indicators and regression
techniques. Rem. Sens. 6, 1137–1157. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs6021137.
Allbed, A., Kumar, L., Sinha, P., 2017. Soil salinity and vegetation cover change detection
from multi-temporal remotely sensed imagery in Al Hassa Oasis in Saudi Arabia.
Geocarto Int. 6049, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2017.1303090.
Appleton, B.L., Greene, V., Smith, A., French, S., Kane, B., Fox, L., Downing, A., Gilland,
T., 2009. Trees and shrubs that tolerate saline soils and salt spray drift.
Aschbacher, J., Tiangco, P., Giri, C.P., Ofren, R.S., Paudyal, D.R., Ang, Y.K., 1995.
Comparison of different sensors and analysis techniques for tropical mangrove forest
mapping. In: IGARSS Proceedings, vol. 3. pp. 2109–2111.
Blackman, J.G., Gardiner, S.J., Morgan, M.G., 1995. Framework for biogeographic in-
ventory, assessment, planning. In: Finlayson, C.M. (Ed.), and management of wetland
systems: the Queensland approach, Workshop Proceedings, Wetland Research in the
WetlDry Tbopics of Australia, Supervising Scientist Report No. 101. Jabiru, NT,
Australia.
49
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50
Bourgeau-Chavez, L.L., Smith, K.B., Brunzell, S.M., Kasischke, E.S., Romanowicz, E.A.,
Richardson, C.J., 2005. Remote monitoring of regional inundation patterns and hy-
droperiod in the greater everglades using synthetic aperture radar. Wetlands 25,
176–191. https://doi.org/10.1672/0277-5212(2005)025[0176:RMORIP]2.0.CO;2.
Bowman, H.H.M., 1917. Ecology and physiology of red mangroves. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc.
56, 589–672.
Brady, A., Shaikh, M., King, A., Sharma, P., 1999. Remote sensing and the Great Cumbung
Swamp. Wetl. Aust. 7, 596–606.
CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan U.S. Army Corps of Engineer and South
Florida Water Management District, Florida. http://www.evergladesplan.org/,
Accessed date: 23 December 2015.
Chimney, M.J., Goforth, G., 2006. History and description of the Everglades Nutrient
Removal Project, a subtropical constructed wetland in south Florida (USA). Ecol. Eng.
27 (4), 268–278.
USGS USGS Data and Tools: GIS Data. https://www.usgs.gov/products/data-and-tools/
gis-data (accessed Nov 3, 2016).
Davis, S., Ogden, J.C., 1994. Everglades: the ecosystem and its restoration. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Florida.
Deilmai, B.R., Ahmad, B.B., Zabihi, H., 2014. Comparison of two Classification methods
(MLC and SVM) to extract land use and land cover in Johor Malaysia. In: IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 20. IOP Publishing, pp.
12052.
Douglas, M.S., Fink, R., Grunwald, M., 2007. The Everglades: river of grass. Pineapple
Press Inc.
USGS Earth Explorer Website. https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/, Accessed date: 1 March
2017.
ENP Website Everglades National Park. U.S. National Park Service. https://www.nps.
gov/ever/index.htm, Accessed date: 1 September 2015.
Egler, F.E., 1948. The dispersal and establishment of Red Mangrove Rhizophora in
Florida. Caribb. For. 9, 299–320.
Erdas Inc. Erdas Field Guide; Atlanta, Georgia, 1999.
Flowers, T.J., Troke, P.F., Yeo, A.R., 1977. The mechanism of salt tolerance in halophytes.
Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 28, 89–121.
Foody, G.M., 2002. Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sens.
Environ. 80, 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00295-4.
Frazier, P.S., Page, K.J., 2000. Water body detection and delineation with Landsat TM
data. Photogramm. Eng. Rem. Sens. 66, 1461–1468.
Held, A., Ticehurst, C., Lymburner, L., Williams, N., 2003. High resolution mapping of
tropical mangrove ecosystems using hyperspectral and radar remote sensing. Int. J.
Rem. Sens. 24, 2739–2759. https://doi.org/10.1080/0143116031000066323.
VRO Victoria Resources Online http://vro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/
pages/water_spotting_soil_salting_class_ranges#s1 (accessed Jun 3, 2016).
Jones, D., Madden, M., Snyder, J., Rutchey, K., 2002. Draft Report on Vegetation
Classification System for South Florida. National Parks.
Kasischke, E.S., Smith, K.B., Bourgeau-Chavez, L.L., Rmanowicz, E.A., Brunzell, S.,
Richardson, C.J., 2003. Effects of seasonal hydrologic patterns in south Florida
wetlands on radar backscatter measured from ERS-2 SAR imagery. Remote Sens.
Environ. 88, 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2003.08.016.
Khadim, F.K., Kar, K.K., Halder, P.K., Rahman, M.A., Morshed, A.K.M.M., 2013.
Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Impacts in South West Coastal
Zone of Bangladesh and Fact-Finding on Tidal River Management (TRM). J. Water
Resour. Protect. 5, 953–961. https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2013.510098.
King, R.B., 2002. Land cover mapping principles: a return to interpretation fundamentals.
Int. J. Rem. Sens. 23, 3525–3546. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160110109606.
Kingsford, R.T., Thomas, R.F., Wong, P.S., Knowles, E., 1997. GIS Database for Wetlands
of the Murray Darling Basin; Sydney, Australia.
Kuenzler, E.J., 1974. Mangrove swamp systems. In: In: Odum, H.T., Copeland, B.J.,
McMahon, E.A. (Eds.), Coastal ecological systems, vol. 1. Conservation Foundation,
Washington, D.C., pp. 346–371.
Laba, M., Smith, S.D., Degloria, S.D., 1997. Landsat-based land cover mapping in the
lower Yuna River watershed in the Dominican Republic. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 18,
3011–3025. https://doi.org/10.1080/014311697217170.
Lamond, R.E., Whitney, D.A., 1992. Management of Saline and Sodic Soils.
Lee, K.H., Lunetta, R.S., 1995. In: Lyon, U.G., McCarthy, J. (Eds.), Wetland detection
methods, Wetland and Environment Applications of GIS, Boca Raton, Florida.
Light, S.S., Dineen, J.W., 1994. In: Davis, S.M., Ogden, J.C. (Eds.), Water control in the
Everglades: A historical perspective, The Everglades—The Ecosystem and its
Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida.
FCE LTER Florida Coastal Everglades: Long Term Ecological Research. http://fcelter.fiu.
edu/data/GIS/, Accessed date: 1 February 2016.
Lu, D., Weng, Q., 2007. A survey of image classification methods and techniques for
improving classification performance. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 26, 823–870.
Lucas, R.M., Milne, A.K., Mitchell, A., Donnelly, B., Ellison, J., 2000. Use of stereo aerial
photography for assessing changes in the extent and height of mangrove canopies in
tropical Australia. In: IGARSS Proceedings, vol. 5. pp. 1880–1882.
MacNae, W., 1969. A general account of the fauna and flora of mangrove swamps and
forests in the Indo-West-Pacific region. Adv. Mar. Biol. 6, 73–270.
Manavalan, P., Sathyanath, P., Rajegowda, G.L., 1993. Digital image analysis techniques
to estimate waterspread for capacity evaluations of reservoirs. Photogramm. Eng.
Rem. Sens. 59, 1389–1395.
McKee, K.L., 1996. Growth and physiological responses of neotropical mangrove seed-
lings to root zone hypoxia. Tree Physiol. 16, 883–889.
Metternicht, G.I., Zinck, J.A., 2003. Remote sensing of soil salinity: potentials and con-
straints. Remote Sens. Environ. 85, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(02)
00188-8.
Miao, S., 2004. Rhizome growth and nutrient resorption: mechanisms underlying the
F.K. Khadim et al.
replacement of two clonal species in Florida Everglades. Aquat. Bot. 78, 55–66.
Miller, R.W., Donahue, R.L., 1995. Soils in our environment. Prentice hall.
Mitra, D., Karmaker, S., 2010. Mangrove Classification in Sundarban using High
Resolution Multi-Spectral Remote Sensing Data and GIS. Asian J. Environ. Disaster
Manag. 2, 197–207.
Miyamoto, S., Martinez, I., Padilla, M., Portillo, A., 2004. Landscape Plant Lists for Salt
Tolerance Assessment.
Module, FLAASH. Atmospheric correction module: QUAC and FLAASH user's guide. pp.
44 Version, 4.
Mougin, E., Proisy, C., Marty, G., Fromard, F., Puig, H., Betoulle, J.L., Rudant, J.P., 1999.
Multifrequency and multipolarisation radar backscattering from mangrove forests.
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Rem. Sens. 37, 94–102.
MRLC, M.-R.L.C.C. National Land Cover Database (NLCD). https://www.mrlc.gov/index.
php, Accessed date: 24 September 2015.
Odum, W.E., McIvor, C.C., Smith III, T.J., 1982. The Ecology of the Mangroves of South
Florida. A Community Profile.
Otukei, J.R., Blaschke, T., 2010. Land cover change assessment using decision trees,
support vector machines and maximum likelihood classification algorithms. Int. J.
Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 11, S27–S31.
Pezeshki, S.R., DeLaune, R.D., Patrick Jr., W.H., 1990. Differential response of selected
mangroves to soil flooding and salinity: gas exchange and biomass partitioning. Can.
J. For. Res. 20, 869–874.
Proisy, C., Mougin, E., Fromard, F., 1996. Investigating correlations between radar data
and mangrove characteristics. In: IGARSS Proceedings, vol. 1. pp. 733–735.
Proisy, C., Mougin, E., Fromard, F., Karam, M.A., 2000. Interpretation of polarimetric
radar signatures of Mangrove forests. Remote Sens. Environ. 71, 56–66. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0034-4257(99)00064-4.
Ramsey III, E.W., Jensen, J.R., 1996. Remote sensing of mangrove wetlands: Relating
canopy spectra to site-specific data. Photogramm. Eng. Rem. Sens. 62, 939–948.
Rasolofoharinoro, M., Blasco, F., Bellan, M.F., Azipuru, M., Gauquelin, T., Denis, J., 1998.
A remote sensing based methodology for mangrove studies in Madagascar. Int. J.
Rem. Sens. 19, 1873–1886. https://doi.org/10.1080/014311698215036.
Rhoades, J.D., Chanduvi, F., 1999. Soil salinity assessment: Methods and interpretation of
electrical conductivity measurements. Food & Agriculture Org. 57.
Richards, J., 1999. Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis. Springer-Verlag, Berlin 240.
Ross, M.S., Meeder, J.F., Sah, J.P., Ruiz, P.L., Telesnicki, G.J., 2000. The southeast saline
Everglades revisited: 50 years of coastal vegetation change. J. Veg. Sci. 11, 101–112.
50
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 110 (2019) 31–50
Schaeffer-Novelli, Y., Cintrón-Molero, G., Soares, M.L.G., De-Rosa, T., 2000. Brazilian
mangroves. Aquat. Ecosys. Health Manag. 3.
Shober, A.L., 2008. Soils and Fertilizers for Master Gardeners: Tackling Soil Salinity
Problems in the Home Landscape.
Shober, A.L., 2009. Soils and Fertilizers for Master Gardeners: Tackling Soil Salinity
Problems in the Home Landscape1.
Simard, M., Zhang, K., Rivera-Monroy, V.H., Ross, M.S., Ruiz, P.L., Castañeda-Moya, E.,
Twilley, R.R., Rodriguez, E., 2006. Mapping Height and Biomass of Mangrove Forests
in Everglades National Park with SRTM Elevation Data. Photogramm. Eng. Rem.
Sens. 3, 299–311.
Sklar, F., McVoy, C., VanZee, R., Gawlik, D.E., Tarboton, K., Rudnick, D., Miao, S., 2002.
In: Porter, J.W., Porter, K.G. (Eds.), The effects of altered hydrology on the ecology of
the Everglades, The Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys,
Boca Raton, Florida.
Stehman, S.V., Wickhamb, J.D., Smithc, J.H., Yangd, L., 2003. Thematic accuracy of the
1992 National Land-Cover Data for the eastern United States: Statistical methodology
and regional results. Remote Sens. Environ. 86, 500–516.
Steward, K.K., Ornes, W.H., 1975. The autecology of sawgrass in the Florida Everglades.
Ecology 56, 162–171.
Teas, H.J., 1979. Silviculture with saline water. In: The biosaline concept. Springer US,
pp. 117–161.
Vitousek, P.M., 1994. Beyond global warming: ecology and global change. Ecology 75,
1861–1876.
Wang, Y., Imhoff, M.L., 1993. Simulated and observed L-HH radar backscatter from
tropical mangrove forests. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 14, 2819–2828. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01431169308904311.
Wdowinski, S., Amelung, F., Miralles-Wilhelm, F., Dixon, T.H., Carande, R., 2004. Space-
based measurements of sheet-flow characteristics in the Everglades wetland.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 31. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020383.
USGS What are the band designations for the Landsat satellites? Landsat Missions.
https://landsat.usgs.gov/what-are-band-designations-landsat-satellites, Accessed
date: 3 January 2017.
Wu, J., Vincent, B., Yang, J., Bouarfa, S., Vidal, A., 2008. Remote Sensing Monitoring of
Changes in Soil Salinity: A Case Study in Inner Mongolia, China. Sensors 8,
7035–7049.
Wyn Jones, R.G., 1981. In: Johnson, C.B. (Ed.), Physiological processes limiting plant
productivity. Elsevier, Butterworths, London.