## 4 Conclusions  
Very high-resolution UAVMS was generated for the micro-location within the area of the Lun olive gardens on the island of Pag. Generated UAVMS with a spatial resolution of 4.14 cm was used to generate GEOBIA and VIs models in the olive tree canopies extraction process. In the GEOBIA approach, three classification algorithms were tested, which resulted in choosing the RTC model as the most accurate one (OA = 0.7565), although models SVM (OA = 0.7418) and MLC (OA = 0.7403) showed also very satisfying results. The second approach, which included VIs, showed significantly greater deviations in the accuracy assessment results, with the most accurate NDRE VI model resulting in 0.888 and the NDVI model resulting in 0.619 in the AUC measure. Deviations can be explained mostly due to the different spectral band formulas which were used in the generation process.  
In the final comparison, accuracy assessment metrics revealed that the VIs approach is more accurate than the GEOBIA approach in the extraction of olive tree canopies. VI NDRE model showed better results in both compared methods. In the first method which included polygons of RT and FT, the VI NDRE model resulted in 0.888 in AUC and 0.7519 in OA, while GEOBIA RTC resulted in 0.880 in AUC and 0.7565 in OA. The above-mentioned shows that the GEOBIA approach is also very reliable in the olive tree canopies extraction process; but in this study, VIs model showed better results. In conclusion, the GEOBIA method takes a lot of time with all steps combined and the process complexity, while the method with VIs is a very fast and efficient method with accuracy resulting mostly even or higher results than the GEOBIA, an approach created for the purpose.  
Conceptualization, A.S., I.M. and M.J.; methodology, A.S., R.M. ([PERSON]), F.D., L.P. and R.M. ([PERSON]); software, A.S., R.M. ([PERSON]), F.D. and R.M. ([PERSON]); validation, A.S., L.P., M.J., I.M. and D.R.; formal analysis, A.S., R.M. ([PERSON]) and F.D.; investigation, A.S., R.M. ([PERSON]), L.P. and R.M. ([PERSON]); resources, A.S., M.J. and D.R.; data curation, R.M. ([PERSON]), F.D., I.M., L.P. and R.M. ([PERSON]); writing-original draft preparation, A.S. and R.M. ([PERSON]); writing--review and editing, F.D., M.J., L.P. and D.R.; visualization, A.S., R.M. ([PERSON]) and F.D.; supervision, A.S., M.J., I.M. and D.R.; project administration, M.J., I.M. and D.R; funding acquisition, A.S. and M.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was performed within the project UIP-2017-05-2694, which was financially supported by the Croatian Science Foundation. This research was also funded by the Italy-Croatia cross-border cooperation program 2014-2020 as part of the STREAM (Strategic development of flood management) project.  
Not applicable.  
Figure 16: ROC curves and AUC values for 1000 points comparison.  
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.  
This research was produced as part of the project UIP-2017-05-2694 financially supported by the Croatian Science Foundation. Results and findings from this study will be used for further research of the STREAM (Strategic development of flood management) project, funded by the Italy-Croatia cross-border cooperation program 2014-2020. The authors would also like to thank \"Lun Olive Grove Garden\", and especially [PERSON] for his great help during the fieldwork.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.