4.7 Article

Detecting historical historical changes to vegetation in a Cambodian protected area using the Landsat TM and ETM plus sensors

期刊

REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT
卷 187, 期 -, 页码 332-344

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2016.10.027

关键词

Landsat; CDR; Radiometric normalization; Vegetation indices; Change detection; Cambodia

资金

  1. APSARA
  2. Ministry of Environment, Cambodia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Phnom Kulen National Park (PKNP), Cambodia is faced with increasing environmental pressures and disturbances to vegetation. Changes in satellite vegetation indices (VIs) over time can be used to understand historical changes to vegetation in the PKNP provided images are calibrated to surface reflectance. Relative radiometric normalization (RRN) is one method to achieve this while the Landsat Climate Data Record (CDR) surface reflectance product provides an alternative. The objectives of this study are to: (1) determine the magnitude of differences between VIs produced using the CDR product and RRN images; (2) determine whether any differences in the VIs produced using the RRN and CDR images will impact on the areal extent of change in vegetation detected; and (3) determine the spatial and temporal extent of historical changes to vegetation in the PKNP. The choice of RRN or CDR had subtle but important impacts on the areal extent of detected changes to vegetation. The RRN images reduced inter-annual variations in vegetation response. The EVI was more resilient to residual atmospheric effects in the RRN and CDR images. Two relatively large regions of the PKNP were found to be relatively undisturbed. Recent changes to vegetation were found in areas that were previously undisturbed, and the proportion of the PKNP where changes were detected was increasing. Future work will include images from other sensors to reduce spatial and temporal gaps, and improve the temporal range of the methodology. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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