4.4 Article

Improving large-scale moso bamboo mapping based on dense Landsat time series and auxiliary data: a case study in Fujian Province, China

期刊

REMOTE SENSING LETTERS
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 1-10

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/2150704X.2017.1378454

关键词

-

资金

  1. International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR)
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41601453]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province of China [20161BAB213078]
  4. Open Research Foundation of Key Laboratory of Watershed Ecology and Geographical Environment Monitoring, State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping of China [WE2016007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bamboo forest, especially moso bamboo forest, is very important to human society. However, our ability to detect large-scale moso bamboo with optical remote sensing is still limited due to the spectral similarity with other forest species and the influence of cloud occurrence. In this study, we examined the capability of dense Landsat time series for moso bamboo forest mapping by comparing three different interpretation schemes. For each scheme, two experimental groups were further conducted to investigate the usefulness of gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) textures. Considering classification accuracy, the full-season compositing strategy was regarded as the most efficient. It was generally beneficial to include GLCM textures as input features, although their usefulness would be partially offset due to noise/correlation issues. We also investigated the roles of 15 types of auxiliary covariates in extracting moso bamboo and found some of them could enhance the classification performance significantly. With the full-season compositing scheme and crucial auxiliary covariates, an improved moso bamboo mapping performance (93.21% in overall accuracy and 73.97% in minimum accuracy) was observed within the study area. Our evaluation results are promising to provide robust guidelines for remote mapping of moso bamboo forest over large areas.

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

4.4
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