Asymmetric Vegetation Responses to Flood Exposure in the Chi River Basin: A Multi-Temporal Remote Sensing and Machine Learning Investigation

Information from the abstract

Flooding and drought alternate in many tropical floodplains, but how vegetation responds to both hazards over multiple years remains poorly quantified. We examined vegetation–flood associations in the Chi River Basin, Northeast Thailand, drawing on Sentinel-2 imagery from 2020, 2023, and 2024, flood records from 2017, 2018, 2021, and 2022, and machine learning methods across 230,911 point-based spatial units. Nine forms of asymmetry emerged from the analysis. The most striking was recovery asymmetry: areas that flooded at least twice between 2017 and 2022 gained vegetation during 2020–2023 (mean NDVI change = +0.0270), whereas areas with little or no flood exposure lost vegetation (mean change = −0.0430). This gap was statistically significant (Cohen’s d = 0.5586, p < 0.001) and suggests that repeated flooding may buffer vegetation against subsequent drought. Agricultural land declined less (−0.0316) than forest (−0.0937; ANOVA F = 1717.7, p < 0.001). Baseline vegetation condition, measured as NDVI in 2020, contributed 32.9% to model importance, more than twice the contribution of elevation (14.5%). Spectral indices together accounted for 76.6% of importance, compared with 23.5% for topographic variables. The 2023 El Niño year produced the largest difference between high-flood and low-flood areas (+0.0364); because only one year per ENSO phase was available, we treat this as a case-based comparison rather than a general ENSO response. Threshold analysis identified two distinct values: an operational cut-off at NDVI = 0.05 (overall accuracy 82.67%) and an ecological transition around 0.25–0.30. Spatial clustering was weak but significant (Moran’s I = 0.2179, p < 0.001). Spatial block cross-validation gave lower accuracy (0.597) than random cross-validation (0.627), pointing to spatial autocorrelation in the data. High-flood areas had 1.67 times the vulnerability index of low-flood areas (0.4306 vs. 0.2573). These patterns support differentiated management: elevation-based zoning, warning systems calibrated to local flood regimes, and focused interventions at hotspots.

Why this record is monitored

This record has an Impact Signal of 75/100 based on recency, source, collaboration, and bibliographic signals. It prioritizes monitoring and is not a judgment of research quality.

Related topics: Remote Sensing in Agriculture · Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies · Flood Risk Assessment and Management