**Andrew Hennessy \*, Kenneth Clarke and Megan Lewis**

School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005, Australia; kenneth.clarke@adelaide.edu.au (K.C.); megan.lewis@adelaide.edu.au (M.L.)

**\*** Correspondence: andrew.hennessy@adelaide.edu.au

Received: 22 October 2019; Accepted: 24 December 2019; Published: 1 January 2020

**Abstract:** Hyperspectral sensing, measuring reflectance over visible to shortwave infrared wavelengths, has enabled the classification and mapping of vegetation at a range of taxonomic scales, often down to the species level. Classification with hyperspectral measurements, acquired by narrow band spectroradiometers or imaging sensors, has generally required some form of spectral feature selection to reduce the dimensionality of the data to a level suitable for the construction of a classification model. Despite the large number of hyperspectral plant classification studies, an in-depth review of feature selection methods and resultant waveband selections has not yet been performed. Here, we present a review of the last 22 years of hyperspectral vegetation classification literature that evaluates the overall waveband selection frequency, waveband selection frequency variation by taxonomic, structural, or functional group, and the influence of feature selection choice by comparing such methods as stepwise discriminant analysis (SDA), support vector machines (SVM), and random forests (RF). This review determined that all characteristics of hyperspectral plant studies influence the wavebands selected for classification. This includes the taxonomic, structural, and functional groups of the target samples, the methods, and scale at which hyperspectral measurements are recorded, as well as the feature selection method used. Furthermore, these influences do not appear to be consistent. Moreover, the considerable variability in waveband selection caused by the feature selectors effectively masks the analysis of any variability between studies related to plant groupings. Additionally, questions are raised about the suitability of SDA as a feature selection method, with it producing waveband selections at odds with the other feature selectors. Caution is recommended when choosing a feature selector for hyperspectral plant classification: We recommend multiple methods being performed. The resultant sets of selected spectral features can either be evaluated individually by multiple classification models or combined as an ensemble for evaluation by a single classifier. Additionally, we suggest caution when relying upon waveband recommendations from the literature to guide waveband selections or classifications for new plant discrimination applications, as such recommendations appear to be weakly generalizable between studies.

**Keywords:** hyperspectral; spectra; vegetation; plant; classification; discrimination; feature selection; waveband selection; support vector machine; random forest
