A comparison of the IGBP DISCover and University of Maryland 1 km global land cover products

Abstract

Abstract. Two global 1 km land cover data sets derived from 1992-1993 Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) data are currently available, the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme Data and Information System (IGBP-DIS) DISCover and the University of Maryland (UMd) 1 km land cover maps. This paper makes a preliminary comparison of the methodologies and results of the two products. The DISCover methodology employed an unsupervised clustering classi cation scheme on a per-continent basis using 12 monthly maximum NDVI composites as inputs. The UMd approach employed a supervised classi cation tree method in which temporal metrics derived from all AVHRR bands and the NDVI were used to predict class membership across the entire globe. The DISCover map uses the IGBP classi cation scheme, while the UMd map employs a modi ed IGBP scheme minus the classes of permanent wetlands, cropland/natural vegetation mosaic and ice and snow. Global area totals of aggregated vegetation types are very similar and have a per-pixel agreement of 74%. For tall versus short/no vegetation, the per-pixel agreement is 84%. For broad vegetation types, core areas map similarly, while transition zones around core areas di er signi cantly. This results in high regional variability between the maps. Individual class agreement between the two 1 km maps is 49%. Comparison of the maps at a nominal 0.5ß resolution with two global ground-based maps shows an improvement of thematic concurrency of 46% when viewing average class agreement. The absence of the cropland mosaic class creates a di culty in comparing the maps, due to its signi cant extent in the DISCover map. The DISCover map, in general, has more forest, while the UMd map has considerably more area in the intermediate tree cover classes of woody savanna/ woodland and savanna/wooded grassland.

Far-infrared surface emissivity and climate

“…However, it should be noted that this extrapolation is not based on direct observations, and the unsupervised use of IGBP data has been problematic upon confrontation with data (44). We expect the results of Fig.…”

The Standardization and Harmonization of Land Cover Classification Systems towards Harmonized Datasets: A Review

“…The legend translation form was designed for every land cover class, which was reviewed by the GOFC-GOLD land cover office and adjusted according to advice from GLCN-LCTC staff members. Legend properties and class descriptions of ACS, CLC, IGBP and UMD were found in their research paper, technical guide or web portal [18,41,46,73,74]. The assessment of the degree (%) of legend consistency and translation confidence is summarized in Figure 3 [75].…”

“…FAO/UNEPLand Cover Classification System [23,28] has been explored and adopted by a number of international land assessment communities such as the IGBP-DIS Land Cover Legend with 17 classes [22], the GOFC/GOLD, and the UN GLCN and forest cover classification [24]. The University of Maryland (UMD) global Land Cover Classification from AVHRR satellites acquired between 1981 and 1994, developed by the UMD Department of Geography, were analyzed to distinguish 14 land cover classes in 1998 [46]. …”

Assessing the Impact of Using Different Land Cover Classification in Regional Modeling Studies for the Manaus Area, Brazil

“…USGS data are derived from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) sensor, and measurements based on Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) with a resolution of 1.0 km, obtained between from April 1992 to March 1993 [6]. The MODIS-2005, with a spatial resolution of 500 meters, comprises data acquired in 36 spectral bands distributed between the visible and thermal infrared (0.4 -14.3 μm) [7].…”