4.7 Article

Development of In Situ Experiments for Evaluation of Anisotropic Reflectance Effect on Spectral Mixture Analysis for Vegetation Cover

期刊

IEEE GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING LETTERS
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 636-640

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/LGRS.2016.2531743

关键词

Anisotropic reflectance effect (ARE); checkerboard mixture design; spectral mixture analysis (SMA); vegetation cover estimate

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51139002, 51479086, 51369016]
  2. Ministry of Education Innovative Research Team [IRT13069]
  3. Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology [2010DFA71460]
  4. Inner Mongolia Agricultural University Innovative Research Team [NDTD2010-6]
  5. Inner Mongolia Autonomous Talent Team

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Owing to its flexibility, spectral mixture analysis (SMA) based on the linear spectral mixing model (LSMM) is a useful tool for subpixel vegetation cover estimation. Multiple scattering and endmember spectral variability are the two reasons that produce errors in the LSMM-retrieved cover fraction estimates. Although the anisotropic reflectance properties are well documented, their effect has barely been investigated in the studies of subpixel vegetation cover estimation. This letter developed a series of controlled in situ experiments (using a checkerboard mixture design) to evaluate the anisotropic reflectance effect (ARE) on fractional vegetation cover estimation using SMA based on the LSMM. The results illustrate that ARE has a large impact on SMA for vegetation cover estimation, and the developed approach allowing for ARE produces more accurate estimates, as the value of root-mean-square error drops more than 50%. This letter may open a new perspective for using SMA to estimate vegetation cover by emphasizing the importance of integrating ARE and characterizing anisotropic reflectance properties of an endmember class as another source of intraclass variability that is likely to be ignored.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据