A Comparison of Satellite Imagery Sources for Automated Detection of Retrogressive Thaw Slumps

Retrogressive thaw slumps (RTS) are a form of abrupt permafrost thaw that can rapidly mobilize ancient frozen soil carbon, magnifying the permafrost carbon feedback. However, the magnitude of this effect is uncertain, largely due to limited information about the distribution and extent of RTS across the circumpolar region. Although deep learning methods such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) have shown the ability to map RTS from high-resolution satellite imagery (≤10 m), challenges remain in deploying these models across large areas. Imagery selection and procurement remain one of the largest challenges to upscaling RTS mapping projects, as the user must balance cost with resolution and sensor quality. In this study, we compared the performance of three satellite imagery sources that differed in terms of sensor quality and cost in predicting RTS using a Unet3+ CNN model and identified RTS characteristics that impact detectability. Maxar WorldView imagery was the most expensive option, with a ground sample distance of 1.85 m in the multispectral bands (downloaded at 4 m resolution). Planet Labs PlanetScope imagery was a less expensive option with a ground sample distance of approximately 3.0–4.2 m (downloaded at 3 m resolution). Although PlanetScope imagery was downloaded at a higher resolution than WorldView, the radiometric footprint is around 10–12 m, resulting in less crisp imagery. Finally, Sentinel-2 imagery is freely available and has a 10 m resolution. We used 756 RTS polygons from seven sites across Arctic Canada and Siberia in model training and 63 RTS polygons in model testing. The mean IoU of the validation and testing data sets were 0.69 and 0.75 for the WorldView model, 0.70 and 0.71 for the PlanetScope model, and 0.66 and 0.68 for the Sentinel-2 model, respectively. The IoU of the RTS class was nonlinearly related to the RTS Area, showing a strong positive correlation that attenuated as the RTS Area increased. The models were better able to predict RTS that appeared bright on a dark background and were less able to predict RTS that had higher plant cover, indicating that bare ground was a primary way the models detected RTS. Additionally, the models performed less well in wet areas or areas with patchy ground cover. These results indicate that all imagery sources tested here were able to predict larger RTS, but higher-quality imagery allows more accurate detection of smaller RTS.