U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared in cooperation with the

Mid-America Regional Council

Scientific Investigations Map 3421

Remote Sensing of Bush Honeysuckle in the Middle Blue River Basin, Kansas City, Missouri, 2016–17

By 

Jarrett T. Ellis

2018

Abstract

Amur honeysuckle bush (Lonicera maackii) and Morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii) are two of the most aggressively invasive species to become established throughout 

areas along the Blue River in metropolitan Kansas City, Missouri. These two large, spreading 

shrubs (locally referred to as bush honeysuckle in the Kansas City metropolitan area) colonize the understory, crowd out native plants, and may be allelopathic, producing a chemical 

that restricts growth of native species. Removal efforts have been underway for more than 

a decade by local conservation groups such as Bridging The Gap and Heartland Conservation Alliance, who are concerned with the loss of native species diversity associated with the 

spread of bush honeysuckle. Bush honeysuckle produces leaves early in the spring before 

almost all other vegetation and retains leaves late in the fall after almost all other species have 

lost their leaves. Appropriately timed imagery can be used during early spring and late fall to 

map the extent of bush honeysuckle. Using multispectral imagery collected in February 2016 

and true color aerial imagery collected in March 2016, a coverage map of bush honeysuckle 

was made to investigate the extent of bush honeysuckle in a study area along the middle reach 

of the Blue River in the Kansas City metropolitan area in Jackson County, Missouri. The 

coverage map was further classified into unlikely, low-, and high-density bush honeysuckle 

density at a 30-foot cell size. The unlikely density class correctly predicted the absence and 

approximate density of bush honeysuckle for 86 percent of the field-verification points, the 

low-density class predicted the presence and approximate density with 73-percent confidence, 

and the high-density class was predicted with 67-percent confidence.

Introduction

Amur honeysuckle bush (Lonicera maackii) and Morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii) are two of the most aggressively invasive species to become established throughout 

areas along the Blue River in metropolitan Kansas City, Missouri. These two species are 

locally referred to as bush honeysuckle in the Kansas City metropolitan area. Bush honeysuckle plants are large, upright, spreading shrubs reaching 6–20 feet (ft) in height (depending 

on species), with spring flowers that change from white to yellow and produce red berries 

containing seeds in September and October (Missouri Department of Conservation, 2018). 

Originally from Asia, bush honeysuckle was first brought to North America in the mid- to 

late 1800s for landscape ornamentals, wildlife cover, and erosion control (Shouse and others, 

2013) and is one of the most aggressive exotic plants that has escaped and colonized natural 

areas (Missouri Department of Conservation, 2010; 2018). Because of its use as an ornamental shrub, large densities are common in urban areas, but the shrubs are present throughout 

Missouri. Bush honeysuckle produces leaves early in the spring before most other vegetation 

and the leaves remain into late fall after most other vegetation have lost their leaves, giving them a competitive advantage over native plants (Missouri Department of Conservation, 

2018). The seeds germinate in the shady understory, and bush honeysuckle can also sprout 

from intact roots. Once established, bush honeysuckle forms dense understory thickets (fig. 1) 

that limit sunlight to native plants and compete for soil moisture and nutrients, and research 

indicates they may be allelopathic, producing a chemical that restricts growth of most other 

plants in their vicinity (Luken and Mattimiro, 1991; Bauer and others, 2012).

Areas along the Blue River in metropolitan Kansas City in Jackson County, Missouri, are 

infested with bush honeysuckle. At select locations within the Blue River Basin, bush honeysuckle removal efforts by local conservation groups, such as Bridging The Gap and Heartland 

Conservation Alliance (HCA), have been ongoing for more than a decade (Missouri Department of Conservation, 2008). Removal efforts are labor intensive, and if left unchecked, 

the spread of invasive species can result in substantial ecosystem function loss with major 

economic implications (Hartman and McCarthy, 2004; Nowak and others, 2013).

A

B Figure 1. Photographs of bush honeysuckle in a Kansas City, Missouri, park. A, thickets 

dominating the understory and B, close up of bush honeysuckle.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), investigated the extent of bush honeysuckle in a study area along the middle 

reach of the Blue River in the Kansas City metropolitan area in Jackson County, Mo. (fig. 2). 

High-resolution satellite and aerial imagery of the metropolitan Kansas City area are readily 

available. These data, when coupled with remote sensing analytical techniques, can be used to 

map the current (that is, the most recent dataset available) extent of bush honeysuckle within 

the study area, support restoration effectiveness, and provide a sound basis for understanding 

how bush honeysuckle has historically spread within the region. Because the growing season 

of bush honeysuckle begins several weeks earlier and ends several weeks later than most 

deciduous trees and shrubs in the Kansas City area, there is a brief time window when bush 

honeysuckle is visible in high-resolution satellite and aerial imagery that can be used to map 

its extent. This time window varies from year to year but typically is near the end of March 

and the end of November.

Blue River

94°15'

94°29' 39°09'

38°55'

0 2 3

3

1

1

4 5 MILES

0 2 4 5 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data 1:24,000k , 1990

Image base from Environmental Systems Research Institute digital data, 2018

Universal Transverse Mercator Projection Zone 15

North American Datum 1983

Map image is the intellectual property of Esri and is used herein under license. 

Copyright © 2017 Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved.

06893590

06893590 Jackson

County

MISSOURI

EXPLANATION

Study area boundary

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 

and identifier

JACKSON COUNTY

Figure 2. Location of the study area along the Blue River in the Kansas City metropolitan 

area in Jackson County, Missouri.

Description of Study Area

The Blue River has a drainage area of about 258 square miles (mi2) at the Blue River 

at 12th Street in Kansas City, Mo., streamgage (USGS site identification number 06893590; 

fig. 2), and flows from undeveloped areas in its headwaters in Kansas and Missouri northward 

through metropolitan Kansas City, Mo. Along the river corridor in Missouri are large undeveloped tracts that include parks owned by the city of Kansas City and Jackson County. The 

study area consists of a 24-mile-long corridor along the middle Blue River in Kansas City, 

Mo.; covers an area of about 68 mi2; and extends from the Jackson County, Mo., boundary to 

the south and west to Interstate 70 in the north. The study area includes mixed land use, dominated by developed and forested areas (Applied Ecological Services, Inc., 2004), and includes 

large tracts of park land in Jackson County along the Blue River.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to present the results of an investigation on the efficacy of 

using publicly available remote sensing imagery to map the extent of bush honeysuckle in 

the Blue River Basin. For this study, publicly accessible imagery archives were searched for 

imagery of the study area that was acquired within the period of interest (2016–17).

Methods

This section describes the data collection methods, data processing techniques, and quality assurance of the data used in this study. Imagery from February and March of 2016 was 

processed and analyzed, followed by a field verification in November 2017. Datasets that supported the processing and show the results of the analysis are available as a USGS data release 

(Ellis, 2018). Based on field-verification data, the processed imagery was classified into three 

density classes (unlikely, low, and high) of honeysuckle to prepare a density map (fig. 3).

Image Selection and Classification

On November 5, 2016, USGS personnel attended a bush honeysuckle removal event 

hosted by Bridging The Gap, which is a local organization that provides environmental education and volunteer opportunities for bush honeysuckle removal in the study area. During the 

removal event, areas of active bush honeysuckle infestation were identified in the study area. 

The locations and approximate distribution of bush honeysuckle infestation were recorded and 

used to evaluate the suitability of spring and fall imagery.

Publicly available historic multispectral satellite imagery archives were reviewed, 

including imagery from Worldview-3 satellite (DigitalGlobe, Westminster, Colorado), Worldview-2 satellite (DigitalGlobe, Westminster, Colo.), Satellite Pour l’Observation de la Terre 

(SPOT 5; Astrium Services GEO-Information, Toulouse, France), and Landsat 8 thematic 

mapper. Imagery was reviewed during the period when bush honeysuckle would be visible in 

the understory (the months of March and November) and when forest canopy would be at a 

minimum. The review determined that no suitable multispectral satellite imagery was available that covered the study area when only the understory was visible.

True color aerial imagery was identified on Google EarthTM (Google Earth, March 27, 

2016) that seemed to show the understory with a minimum of forest canopy. The locations 

identified in November 2016 during the bush honeysuckle removal event as areas of bush 

honeysuckle infestation were visible in the imagery and were selected for analysis. Additionally, MARC provided multispectral leaf-off aerial imagery that was acquired in February 2016 

(http://www.marc.org/Data-Economy/Maps-and-GIS/Current-Projects/Aerial-Photography) 

for the entire study area. This imagery was acquired while the bush honeysuckle was still 

dormant and also was used in the analysis (fig. 4).

The imagery analysis was approached using methods similar to Shouse and others 

(2013). Both sets of imagery were degraded to a cell size of 3 ft, which was chosen as an 

approximation of the diameter of a small bush honeysuckle plant. The February 2016 imagery, 

which included a multispectral band, was analyzed using the normalized difference vegetation index (NVDI), and the resulting raster consisted of cells with values that ranged from 

−1 to 1. In this range of values, specific ranges were identified that seemed to be representative of impervious surfaces; evergreen vegetation; unnatural green vegetation, such as golf 

courses and sports fields; and open water. These classes were chosen to represent a “mask 

layer,” which is assumed to be an area where no bush honeysuckle would be growing during 

the acquisition of the March 2016 imagery. All ranges that were identified to be in the mask 

layer were reclassified into a single raster, with values of “1” and “0,” with “1” representing 

areas where no bush honeysuckle was likely to grow and “0” representing areas where bush 

honeysuckle may grow. The March 2016 imagery, however, had no multispectral band, which 

is necessary to use the NVDI for analysis. Instead, a supervised classification was chosen 

to analyze the spring imagery. The supervised classification tool requires the selection of 

“training polygons” be drawn around groups of pixels that depict features of interest. In this 

case, 30 polygons were drawn around features that depicted impervious surfaces, evergreen 

vegetation, unnatural green vegetation, and open water. The supervised classification resulted 

in unique classes that represented each training polygon. The classes that corresponded to 

green vegetation were reclassified into a single raster with values of “1” and “0,” where “1” 

represented green vegetation and “0” represented no green vegetation. Finally, the results of 

the February 2016 imagery classification were subtracted from the results of the March 2016 

imagery classification. The resulting raster had values of “−1,” “0,” and “1,” from which “1” 

represented bush honeysuckle and “0” and “−1” represented areas where no green vegetation 

was originally detected and areas of green vegetation that had been masked out, respectively.

The resulting raster, which depicted the absence or presence of bush honeysuckle, was 

overlain with a 30-ft grid, and the percentage of bush honeysuckle presence values in each 

30 ft by 30 ft grid cell was calculated for comparison to human-estimated field-verification 

points (hereafter referred to as field-verification points) and to create a bush honeysuckle 

coverage map (Ellis, 2018). The grid cell size was chosen to match the scale of field verification, which was estimated over a 30-ft square at the field-verification point. The bush honeysuckle coverage data were reclassified into data classes of unlikely, low-, and high-density 

bush honeysuckle occurrence (bush honeysuckle density map) based on the results of the 

quality assurance analysis. The bush honeysuckle density map (fig. 3) provides users the predicted density of bush honeysuckle and an associated confidence of the prediction.

Quality Assurance of the Classified Imagery

On November 9, 2017, members of HCA, the USGS, a University of Missouri–Kansas 

City biogeography class, and other citizen volunteers conducted a field-verification event, 

in which presence or absence of bush honeysuckle was noted at approximately 110 random 

locations in three field-verification areas (fig. 3) within the study area. At each location, 

the approximate percent of bush honeysuckle coverage was estimated from the ground for 

comparison to the 30-ft gridded data. USGS and HCA staff performed a brief field-training 

exercise before the field-verification session to attempt to standardize bush honeysuckle 

identification and coverage estimation procedures. Volunteers were instructed to estimate the 

coverage (in percent) of bush honeysuckle from the perspective of looking downward from 

above the land surface within 15-ft from a randomly selected point, take photographs in each 

of the four intercardinal directions from that point, and choose locations with varying density 

and maturity of bush honeysuckle (fig. 5). Each location coordinate was determined with a 

handheld global positioning system unit that had been corrected with the wide-area augmentation system, with an approximate horizontal accuracy of 10 ft. The field-verification areas 

were chosen for their accessibility (public land) or proximity to areas of interest to MARC 

and HCA for the management and the spread of bush honeysuckle and because they seemed 

to have a wide range in bush honeysuckle coverage. After the field-verification event, several 

points were eliminated from the dataset for incomplete site descriptions, locations, or coverage estimates. Of the 110 points collected during the field-verification event, 52 were used in 

the final analysis (table 1). Geotagged photographs from field points (fig. 5), when available, 

were used to confirm the location recorded, or in some cases adjust the location of the fieldverification point (fig. 6).

Though some unknown human error is likely to exist in the estimation of bush honeysuThough some unknown human error is likely to exist in the estimation of bush honeysuckle 

coverage from the ground, the field-verification point was assumed to accurately represent the 

bush honeysuckle coverage at the time of field verification. The bush honeysuckle coverage 

estimates from the field-verification points were compared to the predicted bush honeysuckle 

coverage value (table 1) values at each 30-ft cell at the corresponding location. At the highest 

field-verification point (estimated to be 100-percent bush honeysuckle coverage), the predicted value of bush honeysuckle coverage was 38 percent. This highest field-verified point 

was chosen to scale the data, instead of using the average percent difference of the entire 

Table 1. Comparison of field-estimated coverage, in percent, during the November 2017 field 

verification to predicted bush honeysuckle coverage value, in percent, determined from March 2016 

Google EarthTM imagery.

[NW, northwest; NE, northeast; SW, southwest; SE, southeast; scaled honeysuckle coverage value was obtained by 

dividing the predicted honeysuckle coverage value by the highest predicted value, 38 percent; difference, in percent, 

was calculated by dividing the difference between the field estimate coverage average and the predicted honeysuckle 

coverage value by the field-estimated coverage average and multiplying by 100]

Point 

number

Point location Field-estimated coverage, in 

percent

Predicted 

honeysuckle 

coverage 

value, 

in percent

Difference, 

in percent

Scaled 

honeysuckle 

coverage 

value, 

in percent

Longitude Latitude NW NE SW SE Average

1 −94.5165 38.9896 0 0 0 0 0 2 undefined undefined

2 −94.5083 39.0433 0 0 0 0 0 0 0a 0

3 −94.5076 39.0429 0 0 0 0 0 0 0a 0

4 −94.5063 39.0423 0 0 0 0 0 0 0a 0

5 −94.5312 38.9944 0 0 0 0 0 6 undefined undefined

6 −94.5312 38.9937 0 0 0 0 0 2 undefined undefined

7 −94.5138 38.9886 0 0 0 0 0 0 0a 0

8 −94.5124 38.9902 0 0 0 0 0 2 undefined undefined

9 −94.5132 38.9927 0 0 0 0 0 0 0a 0

10 −94.5180 38.9902 2 3 3 2 3 2 −20 5

11 −94.5119 38.9930 2 5 4 2 3 0 −100 0

12 −94.5058 39.0420 0 20 0 0 5 0 −100 0

13 −94.5050 39.0413 0 20 20 0 10 3 −70 8

14 −94.5138 38.9908 10 10 10 10 10 4 −60 11

15 −94.5141 38.9912 20 10 10 10 13 0 −100 0

16 −94.5142 38.9918 25 20 0 20 16 5 −69 13

17 −94.5140 38.9907 40 20 20 20 25 11 −56 29

18 −94.5207 38.9940 40 20 20 20 25 14 −44 37

19 −94.5123 38.9924 20 12 40 35 27 3 −89 8

20 −94.5161 38.9923 20 30 40 20 28 6 −78 16

21 −94.5155 38.9917 60 40 5 10 29 3 −90 8

22 −94.5172 38.9905 0 40 80 0 30 3 −90 8

23 −94.5152 38.9911 40 20 40 20 30 5 −83 13

24 −94.5148 38.9915 40 40 20 40 35 9 −74 24

25 −94.5139 38.9909 40 60 20 20 35 10 −71 26

26 −94.5041 39.0413 0 80 0 80 40 4 −90 11

27 −94.5149 38.9911 40 40 40 40 40 9 −78 24

28 −94.5137 38.9906 20 60 20 60 40 8 −80 21

29 −94.5173 38.9926 60 20 40 40 40 21 −48 55

30 −94.5109 38.9925 45 40 50 35 43 12 −72 32

31 −94.5157 38.9904 40 60 20 60 45 5 −89 13

32 −94.5184 38.9930 60 40 60 20 45 7 −84 18

33 −94.5343 38.9965 50 40 90 15 49 11 −77 29

34 −94.5054 39.0414 0 100 0 100 50 26 −48 68

35 −94.5130 38.9914 40 50 50 60 50 14 −72 37

36 −94.5161 38.9919 60 65 30 50 51 7 −86 18

37 −94.5044 39.0419 60 80 20 60 55 2 −96 5

38 −94.5162 38.9920 80 60 40 40 55 4 −93 11

39 −94.5121 38.9907 50 70 40 60 55 3 −95 8

40 −94.5200 38.9933 60 60 40 60 55 7 −87 18

41 −94.5168 38.9922 70 50 80 50 63 22 −65 58

42 −94.5133 38.9925 60 90 40 60 63 9 −86 24

43 −94.5329 38.9936 75 90 95 4 66 16 −76 42

44 −94.5350 38.9954 85 60 75 60 70 36 −49 95

45 −94.5334 38.9942 40 95 70 80 71 20 −72 53

46 −94.5305 38.9952 80 60 80 80 75 43 −43 100b

47 −94.5309 38.9941 90 80 50 80 75 26 −65 68

48 −94.5112 38.9924 65 70 100 70 76 27 −65 71

49 −94.5081 39.0436 80 80 80 80 80 0 0 0

50 −94.5313 38.9925 95 100 60 90 86 29 −66 76

51 −94.5316 38.9946 90 80 95 85 88 35 −60 92

52 −94.5087 39.0431 100 100 100 100 100 38 −62 100

a

Point numbers 2–4, 7, and 9 have the same field-estimated average honeysuckle coverage and predicted honeysuckle coverage, so the percent difference is considered to be 0.

b

Scaled predicted honeysuckle coverage was over 100 percent, so value was changed to 100 percent.

Blue River

Blue River from U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000-scale digital data, 1990

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 15 

North American Datum of 1983

39°03'

39°00' 39°00'

38°57' 38°57'

38°54' 38°54'

38°51' 38°51'

94°30'

94°30'

94°33'

94°33'

94°36'

94°36'

0 1

1

2 3 MILES

0 2 3 4 KILOMETERS

C

B

A

EXPLANATION

Estimated bush honeysuckle density

Field-verification areas (shown in fig. 6)

Study area boundary

A

Unlikely (bush honeysuckle coverage 

0 to 10 percent)

Low (bush honeysuckle coverage 

greater than 10 to 56 percent)

High (bush honeysuckle coverage 

greater than 56 percent)

Figure 3. Estimated density of bush honeysuckle in the study area, along with lettered locations of field-verification areas.

Base map data from Google, 2016

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 15 

North American Datum of 1983

Image base from Mid-America Regional Council, 2016

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 15 

North American Datum of 1983

0.5 MILE

0 0.5 KILOMETER

0 0.5 MILE

0 0.5 KILOMETER

0

A B

94°32'15" 94°31'30" 94°30'45"

38°59'15"

38°58'30"

94°32'15" 94°30'45"

38°58'30"

38°59'15"

94°31'30"

Figure 4. A comparison of the imagery used for analysis of the study area, Jackson County, Missouri. A, February 2016, multispectral imagery and B, March 2016, true color imagery.

0–10 percent

30–50 percent

50–70 percent

70–90 percent

Figure 5. Photographs collected during field verification showing examples of field-estimated bush honeysuckle coverage, in percent.

dataset, because scaling by the lower average percent difference causes the highest field-verified points (which are assumed to be correct) to be calculated over 100-percent coverage. The 

predicted bush honeysuckle coverage data were scaled by this factor for comparison purposes, 

with values more than 100 percent being set equal to 100-percent coverage (table 1). Finally, 

the scaled bush honeysuckle coverage data were reclassified into three ranges of predicted 

bush honeysuckle coverage (0 to 10 percent, greater than 10 to 56 percent, and greater than 56 

to 100 percent), which were chosen to maximize the accuracy of the prediction, identify areas 

where bush honeysuckle is likely to be absent, identify areas where bush honeysuckle is likely 

to be present, and identify areas of high-density bush honeysuckle that are more efficient 

to remediate. These reclassified data were used to produce a bush honeysuckle density map 

(fig. 3). The accuracy of the ranges was determined by the number of field-verification points 

in which the field-verification points and the scaled bush honeysuckle coverage value fell into 

the same range (0 to 10 percent, greater than 10 to 56 percent, and greater than 56 to 100 percent bush honeysuckle coverage) (fig. 6).

Discussion of Remote-Sensing Results

When field-verification values were compared to the bush honeysuckle coverage 

values (table 1), the field value was typically greater than the predicted value of bush honeysuckle coverage with a mean percent difference of about −66 percent (table 1). As would be 

expected, the two datasets were linearly correlated with a coefficient of determination of 0.56 

(fig. 7).

The difference between the field values and the bush honeysuckle coverage values 

indicates that the predicted value was underestimating the coverage of bush honeysuckle 

at most field-verification points (fig. 8). This underestimation may indicate that the March 

2016 imagery that was used no longer accurately represents the bush honeysuckle coverage 

on the ground at the time of the November 2017 field verification. The imagery used in the 

analysis was taken approximately 19 months before the field-verification event, and because 

the growth rate of bush honeysuckle is estimated at 1 ft per year (Deering and Vankat, 1999), 

field observations were likely to report higher values of coverage than the predicted values. 

Repeated field-verification estimates at a subset of the field-verification points may help 

quantify the rate of growth of bush honeysuckle during the period between image acquisition 

and field verification, as well as document the rate of spread of the species in the study area. 

The March 2016 imagery also may have been collected too early in the growing season to 

accurately represent bush honeysuckle coverage during the late season field verification. The 

March 2016 imagery also had other plant species in various stages of leaf development in 

addition to bush honeysuckle, which may have masked out or diluted some of the bush honeysuckle occurrences that should have been classified in the imagery. The process of extracting 

the imagery data from Google EarthTM for use in the supervised classification degraded the 

image from the original resolution of approximately 0.5 ft to a resolution of approximately 

0.65 ft, and then further degrading the imagery to 3 ft could have altered the pixel color 

values, making the bush honeysuckle more difficult to identify. Field-verification data should 

optimally be collected as close to the acquisition of the imagery date as possible to increase 

validity of the comparison between field-observed values and imagery-derived values. Finally, 

an unknown human error exists when estimating coverage of bush honeysuckle in the field, 

primarily because the field observer is estimating density based on a near horizontal viewing 

angle, whereas the computer-derived estimates are from imagery looking vertically downward 

from above the tree canopy. Although volunteers were instructed in the estimation of coverage of bush honeysuckle in the field, mature bush honeysuckle can reach heights of 7 to 10 

ft, which can make estimation of coverage difficult, particularly at a near-horizontal viewing 

angle. In future field-verification efforts, a subset of points should be estimated by several 

volunteers to help quantify the variation in human field estimates, as well as provide a more 

accurate average of field-verification estimates for those points.

The selection of the three classifications used in the bush honeysuckle density map (0 to 

10 percent density [bush honeysuckle unlikely], greater than 10 to 56 percent [low-density 

bush honeysuckle], and greater than 56 to 100 percent [high-density bush honeysuckle]; 

fig. 3) was made to maximize the accuracy of reported densities in the classes, while differentiating the extent of bush honeysuckle to guide targeted removal. Accuracy was determined by 

comparing the field-measured and predicted values (fig. 6; table 1). For the high-density bush 

honeysuckle class, 67 percent (8 of 12) of the tested values were classified into the correct 

range and the mean percent difference between the field and the imagery predicted data was 

−67 percent. In this range, there was one error of omission where field observation indicated 

the presence of bush honeysuckle but the predicted value from the imagery indicated it did not 

exist in that location. For the low-density bush honeysuckle range, 73 percent (20 of 26) of 

the tested values were classified into the correct range. In this range, 85 percent (22 of 26) of 

the predicted data values underestimated the coverage of bush honeysuckle when compared to 

the field values, and the mean percent difference between the field and the predicted data was 

−78 percent. In this range, there was one error of omission where field observation indicated 

the presence of bush honeysuckle but the predicted value from the imagery indicated it did 

not exist in that location. Although confidence that the presence of bush honeysuckle is high 

in this range, the mean percent difference indicates that field values are likely to be greater 

than the predicted values. For the bush honeysuckle unlikely range, 86 percent (12 of 14) of 

the tested predicted values were classified into the correct bin; however, errors of commission occurred at 44 percent (4 of 9) of field-verification points that had no bush honeysuckle 

present but were predicted to have bush honeysuckle present. Errors of omission occurred in 

40 percent (2 of 5) of field-verification points that indicated bush honeysuckle was present but 

the predicted value from the imagery indicated it did not exist in that location

Summary

With proper resolution and timing of the imagery, supervised image classification techniques can be used to determine the extent and density of bush honeysuckle. Using February 

2016 and March 2016 aerial imagery, areas of high-density bush honeysuckle (greater than 

56 to 100 percent) were mapped with 67-percent confidence in the study area, and areas of 

low-density bush honeysuckle (greater than 10 to 56 percent) were mapped with 73-percent 

confidence. Predicted bush honeysuckle percent coverage was generally underestimated 

(mean percent difference −66 percent) when compared with field-verified values. Areas of 

unlikely bush honeysuckle coverage (0 to 10 percent) were mapped with 86-percent confidence but had poor selectivity, where 4 of 9 field-verification points with no bush honeysuckle 

present during field verification incorrectly indicated the presence of bush honeysuckle, and 

2 of 5 field-verification points with bush honeysuckle present during field verification incorrectly indicated the absence of bush honeysuckle. Archived imagery may be used to estimate 

the extent of bush honeysuckle at the time of the imagery, but as the period between image 

acquisition and field-verification increases, the quality of assessment of imagery-derived coverage with the field-observed coverage will degrade because of likely changes in the extent 

and density of the plants in the interim.

References

Applied Ecological Services, Inc., 2004, Ecological land cover classification for a natural 

resources inventory in the Kansas City region, USA: accessed January 2018 at http://www.

marc.org/Environment/Natural-Resources/pdf/NRI-one/nri.aspx.

Bauer, T.J., Stoops, R.E., and Reynolds, H.L., 2012, Context dependency of the allelopathic 

effects of Lonicera maackii on seed germination: Plant Ecology, v. 213, no. 12, p. 1907–

1916. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-012-0036-2.]

Deering, R.H., and Vankat, J., 1999, Forest colonization and developmental growth of the 

invasive shrub Lonicera maackii: American Midland Naturalist, v. 141, no. 1, p. 43–50. 

[Also available at https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(1999)141[0043:FCADGO]2.0.CO;2.]

Ellis, J.T., 2018, Maps supporting the remote sensing delineation of bush honeysuckle in the 

Middle Blue River Basin, Kansas City, Missouri, 2016–17: U.S. Geological Survey data 

release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9RY02KM.

Hartman, K.M., and McCarthy, B.C., 2004, Restoration of a forest understory after the 

removal of an invasive shrub, Amur Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii): Restoration 

Ecology, v. 12, no. 2, p. 154–165. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1061-

2971.2004.00368.x.]

Luken, J.O., and Mattimiro, D.T., 1991, Habitat-specific resilience of the invasive shrub Amur 

Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) during repeated clipping: Ecological Applications, v. 1, 

no. 1, p. 104–109. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.2307/1941852.]

Missouri Department of Conservation, 2008, Curse of the bush honeysuckles: accessed January 2018 at https://mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/downloads/CurseBushHoneysuckle.pdf.

Missouri Department of Conservation, 2010, Bush honeysuckles Lonicera maackii (Amur) 

and Lonicera x bella (Bella): accessed January 2018 at https://mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/

files/downloads/BushHoneysuckles.pdf.

Missouri Department of Conservation, 2018, Bush honeysuckles Lonicera maackii (Amur) 

and Lonicera x bella (Bella): accessed January 2018 at https://nature.mdc.mo.gov/discovernature/field-guide/bush-honeysuckles.

Nowak, D.J., Greenfield, E.J., Hoehn, R.E., and Lapoint, E., 2013, Carbon storage and sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United States: Environmental Pollution, v. 178, p. 229–236. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.03.019.]

Shouse, M., Liang, L., and Fei, S., 2013, Identification of understory invasive exotic plants 

with remote sensing in urban forests: International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, v. 21, p. 525–534. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jag.2012.07.010.]

0 100 200 300 METERS

Image from Mid-America Regional Council, 2016 0 100 200 300 400 500 FEET

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 15 

North American Datum of 1983

14

9

8

7

1

18

29

32

40

36

10

21

35

42 48

11

19

39

30

28

25

17

27

23

24

38

20

16

15

41

31 22

6

5

33

44

45

43

50

51

47

46

4

2 3

26

37

13 34

12

52

49

94°31'20" 94°31'10" 94°31'0" 94°30'50" 94°30'40"

38°59'20"

38°59'30"

38°59'40"

94°32'20" 94°32'10" 94°32'0" 94°31'50"

38°59'40"

38°59'30"

38°59'50"

94°30'40" 94°30'30" 94°30'20" 94°30'10"

39°02'40"

39°02'30"

3

A

B

C

EXPLANATION

Predicted honeysuckle coverage, 

in percent

Field verification point and 

point number

18

91 to 100

81 to 90

11 to 20

71 to 80

61 to 70

51 to 60

41 to 50

31 to 40

21 to 30

11 to 20

0 to 10 (unshaded)

Figure 6. Field-verification point locations and 

field-estimated values of bush honeysuckle 

coverage in the three field-verification areas 

overlain on the predicted bush honeysuckle 

coverage map. A, Lake Lodge, Kansas City, 

Missouri. B, Lakeside Nature Center, Kansas 

City, Missouri. C, Municipal Farm, Kansas City, 

Missouri.

Coefficient of determination (R 2)=0.56

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Field-verification point honeysuckle coverage within a 15-foot radius, in percent

Predicted honeysuckle coverage, in percent

Figure 7. Relation between field-estimated bush honeysuckle coverage and predicted 

bush honeysuckle coverage, in percent, at points from November 2017 field-verification 

survey.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Coverage, in percent

Field verification point number

Field-verification value

Scaled predicted honeysuckle coverage, 

in percent

Predicted honeysuckle coverage, 

in percent

EXPLANATION

Unlikely density class

Low-density class 

High-density class

Figure 8. Column graph depicting original 30-foot predicted bush honeysuckle coverage, scaled 30-foot predicted bush honeysuckle coverage, and field-estimated honeysuckle coverage 

values. Also depicted are the cutoff points for each bin value.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Suggested citation:

Ellis, J.T., 2018, Remote sensing of bush honeysuckle in the Middle Blue River Basin, Kansas City, Missouri, 

2016–17: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3421, 1 sheet, https://doi.org/10.3133/sim3421.

For more information about this publication, contact

Director, USGS Central Midwest Water Science Center 

1400 Independence Road

Rolla, MO 65401

(573) 308–3667

For additional information visit https://mo.water.usgs.gov

Publishing support provided by the 

Rolla Publishing Service Center

ISSN 2329-132X (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/sim3421

0–10 percent 1 2 3 4

30–50 percent 5 6 7 8

50–70 percent 9 10 11 12

70–90 percent 13 14 15 16

Photographs showing bush honeysuckle (fig. 5). Photographs 3, 4, 8, 9, 

10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 by Caitlin Dix, Heartland Conservation Alliance, 

used with permission. Photographs 1, 5, and 6 by Jarrett T. Ellis; and 

photograph 16 by John Schumacher, U.S. Geological Survey. Photographs 

2, 7, and 15 by Don Wilkison, U.S. Geological Survey volunteer.