Signature extension through space for northern landcover classification: A comparison of radiometric correction methods

Abstract Northern landcover mapping for climate change and carbon modeling requires greater detail than what is available from coarse resolution data. Mapping landcover with medium resolution data from Landsat presents challenges due to differences in time and space between scene acquisitions required for full coverage. These differences cause landcover signatures to vary due to haze, solar geometry and phenology, among other factors. One way to circumvent this problem is to have an image interpreter classify each scene independently, however, this is not an optimal solution in the north due to a lack of spatially extensive reference data and resources required to label scenes individually. Another possible approach is to stabilize signatures in space and time so that they may be extracted from one scene and extended to others, thereby reducing the amount of reference data and user input required for mapping large areas. A radiometric normalization approach was developed that exploits the high temporal frequency with which coarse resolution data are acquired and the high spatial frequency of medium resolution data. The current paper compares this radiometric correction methodology with an established absolute calibration methodology for signature extension for landcover classification and explores factors that affect extension performance to recommend how and when signature extension can be applied. Overall, the new normalization method produced better extension and classification results than absolute calibration. Results also showed that extension performance was affected more by geographical distance than by differences in anniversary dates between acquisitions for the range of data examined. Geographical distance in the north–south direction leads to poorer extension performance than distance in the east–west direction due in part to differences in vegetation composition assigned the same class label in the latitudinal direction. While extension performance was somewhat variable and in some cases did not produce a best classification result by itself, it provided an initial best guess of landcover that can subsequently be refined by an expert image interpreter.

[1]  Hongliang Fang,et al.  Atmospheric correction of Landsat ETM+ land surface imagery: Part I: Methods , 2001 .

[2]  Ronald J. Hall,et al.  Operational mapping of the land cover of the forested area of Canada with Landsat data: EOSD land cover program , 2003 .

[3]  Stephen E. Fienberg,et al.  Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice , 1976 .

[4]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[5]  Didier Tanré,et al.  Second Simulation of the Satellite Signal in the Solar Spectrum, 6S: an overview , 1997, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[6]  Rasim Latifovic,et al.  Thematic mapper (TM) based accuracy assessment of a land cover product for Canada derived from SPOT VEGETATION (VGT) data , 2003 .

[7]  R. Latifovic,et al.  Land cover mapping of North and Central America—Global Land Cover 2000 , 2004 .

[8]  James C. Bezdek,et al.  Fuzzy mathematics in pattern classification , 1973 .

[9]  R. Latifovic,et al.  Land cover from multiple thematic mapper scenes using a new enhancement-classification methodology , 1999 .

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

[11]  Conghe Song,et al.  Forest mapping with a generalized classifier and Landsat TM data , 2001 .

[12]  Lorraine Remer,et al.  The MODIS 2.1-μm channel-correlation with visible reflectance for use in remote sensing of aerosol , 1997, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[13]  T. Minter Methods of extending crop signatures from one area to another , 1979 .

[14]  R. Clark,et al.  High spectral resolution reflectance spectroscopy of minerals , 1990 .

[15]  Rasim Latifovic,et al.  From need to product: a methodology for completing a land cover map of Canada with Landsat data , 2003 .

[16]  Rasim Latifovic,et al.  Landsat-7 ETM+ radiometric normalization comparison for northern mapping applications , 2005 .

[17]  Curtis E. Woodcock,et al.  Monitoring large areas for forest change using Landsat: Generalization across space, time and Landsat sensors , 2001 .

[18]  Yong Du,et al.  Radiometric normalization, compositing, and quality control for satellite high resolution image mosaics over large areas , 2001, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[19]  Hongliang Fang,et al.  Atmospheric correction of Landsat ETM+ land surface imagery. I. Methods , 2001, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[20]  Daniel Schläpfer,et al.  SPECCHIO: a spectrum database for remote sensing applications , 2003 .

[21]  Robert H. Fraser,et al.  Landsat ETM+ mosaic of northern Canada , 2005 .

[22]  Michael A. Wulder,et al.  Remote sensing methods in medium spatial resolution satellite data land cover classification of large areas , 2002 .

[23]  Richard Fernandes,et al.  A consistency analysis of surface reflectance and leaf area index retrieval from overlapping clear-sky Landsat ETM+ imagery , 2004 .

[24]  Norman T. O'Neill,et al.  Aerosol Optical Depth for Atmospheric Correction of AVHRR Composite Data , 2000 .

[25]  J. Chen,et al.  Classification by progressive generalization: A new automated methodology for remote sensing multichannel data , 1998 .

[26]  Limin Yang,et al.  COMPLETION OF THE 1990S NATIONAL LAND COVER DATA SET FOR THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES FROM LANDSAT THEMATIC MAPPER DATA AND ANCILLARY DATA SOURCES , 2001 .