|
|
Registros recuperados : 42 | |
Registros recuperados : 42 | |
|
|
Registro Completo
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Territorial. |
Data corrente: |
25/08/2015 |
Data da última atualização: |
25/03/2019 |
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Anais de Congresso |
Autoria: |
LU, D.; MAUSEL, P.; BATISTELLA, M.; MORAN, E. |
Afiliação: |
DENGSHENG LU, INDIANA UNIVERSITY; PAUL MAUSEL, INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY; MATEUS BATISTELLA, CNPM; EMILIO MORAN, INDIANA UNIVERSITY. |
Título: |
Comparison of land-cover classification methods in the Brazilian Amazon Basin. |
Ano de publicação: |
2003 |
Fonte/Imprenta: |
In: ASPRS 2003 ANNUAL CONFERENCE, Anchorage, Alaska/EUA. Proceedings... Bethesda: ASPRS, 2003. 11 p. |
Páginas: |
11 p. |
Idioma: |
Inglês |
Conteúdo: |
Numerous classifiers have been developed and different classifiers have their own characteristics. Controversial results often occurred depending on the landscape complexity of the study area and the data used. Therefore, this paper aims to find a suitable classifier for the tropical land cover classification. Five classifiers ? minimum distance classifier (MDC), maximum likelihood classifier (MLC), fisher linear discriminant (FLD), extraction and classification of homogeneous objects (ECHO), and linear spectral mixture analysis (LSMA) ? were tested using Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) data in the Amazon basin using the same training sample data sets. Seven land cover classes ? mature forest, advanced succession forest, initial secondary succession forest, pasture, agricultural lands, bare lands, and water ? were classified. Overall classification accuracy and kappa analysis were calculated. The results indicate that LSMA and ECHO classifiers provided better classification accuracies than the MDC, MLC, and FLD in the moist tropical region. The overall accuracy of LSMA approach reaches 86% associated with 0.82 kappa coefficient |
Palavras-Chave: |
Extraction and classification of homogeneous; Fisher linear discriminant; Minimum distance classifier. |
Categoria do assunto: |
P Recursos Naturais, Ciências Ambientais e da Terra |
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/194970/1/4553.pdf
|
Marc: |
LEADER 01799nam a2200193 a 4500 001 2022621 005 2019-03-25 008 2003 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d 100 1 $aLU, D. 245 $aComparison of land-cover classification methods in the Brazilian Amazon Basin.$h[electronic resource] 260 $aIn: ASPRS 2003 ANNUAL CONFERENCE, Anchorage, Alaska/EUA. Proceedings... Bethesda: ASPRS, 2003. 11 p.$c2003 300 $a11 p. 520 $aNumerous classifiers have been developed and different classifiers have their own characteristics. Controversial results often occurred depending on the landscape complexity of the study area and the data used. Therefore, this paper aims to find a suitable classifier for the tropical land cover classification. Five classifiers ? minimum distance classifier (MDC), maximum likelihood classifier (MLC), fisher linear discriminant (FLD), extraction and classification of homogeneous objects (ECHO), and linear spectral mixture analysis (LSMA) ? were tested using Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) data in the Amazon basin using the same training sample data sets. Seven land cover classes ? mature forest, advanced succession forest, initial secondary succession forest, pasture, agricultural lands, bare lands, and water ? were classified. Overall classification accuracy and kappa analysis were calculated. The results indicate that LSMA and ECHO classifiers provided better classification accuracies than the MDC, MLC, and FLD in the moist tropical region. The overall accuracy of LSMA approach reaches 86% associated with 0.82 kappa coefficient 653 $aExtraction and classification of homogeneous 653 $aFisher linear discriminant 653 $aMinimum distance classifier 700 1 $aMAUSEL, P. 700 1 $aBATISTELLA, M. 700 1 $aMORAN, E.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
Registro original: |
Embrapa Territorial (CNPM) |
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
Nenhum registro encontrado para a expressão de busca informada. |
|
|