Uncertainties in Classification System Conversion and an Analysis of Inconsistencies in Global Land Cover Products

In this study, using the common classification systems of IGBP-17, IGBP-9, IPCC-5 and TC (vegetation, wetlands and others only), we studied spatial and areal inconsistencies in the three most recent multi-resource land cover products in a complex mountain-oasis-desert system and quantitatively discussed the uncertainties in classification system conversion. This is the first study to compare these products based on terrain and to quantitatively study the uncertainties in classification system conversion. The inconsistencies and uncertainties decreased from high to low levels of aggregation (IGBP-17 to TC) and from mountain to desert areas, indicating that the inconsistencies are not only influenced by the level of thematic detail and landscape complexity but also related to the conversion uncertainties. The overall areal inconsistency in the comparison of the FROM-GLC and GlobCover 2009 datasets is the smallest among the three pairs, but the smallest overall spatial inconsistency was observed between the FROM-GLC and MODISLC. The GlobCover 2009 had the largest conversion uncertainties due to mosaic land cover definition, with values up to 23.9%, 9.68% and 0.11% in mountainous, oasis and desert areas, respectively. The FROM-GLC had the smallest inconsistency, with values less than 4.58%, 1.89% and 1.2% in corresponding areas. Because the FROM-GLC dataset uses a hierarchical classification scheme with explicit attribution from the second level to the first, this system is suggested for producers of map land cover products in the future.

[1]  Hankui K. Zhang,et al.  Finer resolution observation and monitoring of global land cover: first mapping results with Landsat TM and ETM+ data , 2013 .

[2]  Hao Jiang,et al.  Assessing Consistency of Five Global Land Cover Data Sets in China , 2014, Remote. Sens..

[3]  Xiaohui Ye,et al.  A Comparison of Four Global Land Cover Maps on a Provincial Scale Based on China's 30 m GlobeLand30 , 2016, GRMSE.

[4]  Xin Li,et al.  Evaluation of four remote sensing based land cover products over China , 2010 .

[5]  S. Nilsson,et al.  A spatial comparison of four satellite derived 1 km global land cover datasets , 2006 .

[6]  M. Hansen,et al.  A comparison of the IGBP DISCover and University of Maryland 1 km global land cover products , 2000 .

[7]  Mingguo Ma,et al.  Interannual variability of vegetation cover in the Chinese Heihe River Basin and its relation to meteorological parameters , 2006 .

[8]  Damien Sulla-Menashe,et al.  MODIS Collection 5 global land cover: Algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets , 2010 .

[9]  Jean-Louis Roujean,et al.  ECOCLIMAP-II/Europe: a twofold database of ecosystems and surface parameters at 1 km resolution based on satellite information for use in land surface, meteorological and climate models , 2012 .

[10]  Jiming Jin,et al.  Integrating Remote Sensing Data with WRF for Improved Simulations of Oasis Effects on Local Weather Processes over an Arid Region in Northwestern China , 2012 .

[11]  Xin Li,et al.  A Prototype Network for Remote Sensing Validation in China , 2015, Remote. Sens..

[12]  G. Cheng,et al.  Quantifying landscape structure of the Heihe River Basin, north-west China using FRAGSTATS , 2001 .

[13]  Andrew Mitchell,et al.  NASA's Earth Observing Data and Information System - Near-Term Challenges , 2009, Data Sci. J..

[14]  Chandra Giri,et al.  A comparative analysis of the Global Land Cover 2000 and MODIS land cover data sets , 2005 .

[15]  A. Belward,et al.  GLC2000: a new approach to global land cover mapping from Earth observation data , 2005 .

[16]  Geping Luo,et al.  Sustainable land-use patterns for arid lands: A case study in the northern slope areas of the Tianshan Mountains , 2010 .

[17]  Steffen Fritz,et al.  Identifying and quantifying uncertainty and spatial disagreement in the comparison of Global Land Cover for different applications , 2008 .

[18]  Geping Luo,et al.  Carbon stock and its responses to climate change in Central Asia , 2015, Global change biology.

[19]  Youfei Zheng,et al.  Improving Noah land surface model performance using near real time surface albedo and green vegetation fraction , 2016 .

[20]  Armel Thibaut Kaptué Tchuenté,et al.  Comparison and relative quality assessment of the GLC2000, GLOBCOVER, MODIS and ECOCLIMAP land cover data sets at the African continental scale , 2011, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinformation.

[21]  Limin Yang,et al.  Development of a global land cover characteristics database and IGBP DISCover from 1 km AVHRR data , 2000 .

[22]  Xiao Wang,et al.  Evaluation of the 2010 MODIS Collection 5.1 Land Cover Type Product over China , 2015, Remote. Sens..

[23]  Geping Luo,et al.  A spatial-explicit dynamic vegetation model that couples carbon, water, and nitrogen processes for arid and semiarid ecosystems , 2013, Journal of Arid Land.

[24]  Klaus Fraedrich,et al.  Precipitation climate of Central Asia and the large-scale atmospheric circulation , 2012, Theoretical and Applied Climatology.

[25]  G. Meehl,et al.  The Importance of Land-Cover Change in Simulating Future Climates , 2005, Science.

[26]  桑卫国.  Plant diversity patterns and their relationships with soil and climatic factors along an altitudinal gradient in the middle Tianshan Mountain area, Xinjiang, China. , 2009 .

[27]  Valéry Masson,et al.  ECOCLIMAP: a global database of land surface parameters at 1 km resolution , 2005 .

[28]  Rasim Latifovic,et al.  Accuracy assessment using sub-pixel fractional error matrices of global land cover products derived from satellite data , 2004 .