2004
DOI: 10.1109/tgrs.2004.840720
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Landsat sensor performance: history and current status

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
144
0
3

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 281 publications
(148 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
1
144
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This may explain the SH class in 2011 (Figure 3), in which two SH events were not detected and four NC events are classified as SH (and one TH). This poor performance mostly depends on the different radiometry of each scene, but can also be related to a degradation of the quality of the data recorded by the TM sensor [48], in accordance with the lower accuracy obtained also in 2009 and 2010. In addition, potential incomplete harvesting (e.g., single harvest jobs spread over two or more years) could have also affected the accuracy of the classification.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 60%
“…This may explain the SH class in 2011 (Figure 3), in which two SH events were not detected and four NC events are classified as SH (and one TH). This poor performance mostly depends on the different radiometry of each scene, but can also be related to a degradation of the quality of the data recorded by the TM sensor [48], in accordance with the lower accuracy obtained also in 2009 and 2010. In addition, potential incomplete harvesting (e.g., single harvest jobs spread over two or more years) could have also affected the accuracy of the classification.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 60%
“…To examine this qualitatively, and to provide confidence in the local accuracy of the classification, classified MODIS active fire detections were compared with higher spatial resolution 30 m Landsat images. Landsat 5 images were used as they do not have the scan line corrector failure that reduced the amount of useable Landsat 7 image data acquired after May 2003 by 22% (Markham et al 2004). …”
Section: Classification Accuracy Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The region also suffers from low Landsat acquisition frequency for the early Landsat sensors because of lack of ground station coverage in central Africa and limited onboard image storage capacity, reducing temporal coverage for the application of land change methods [30][31][32]. Furthermore, the Landsat ETM+ SLC-off acquisitions suffer from wedge shape gaps reducing 22% of the usable data after 2003 [28,33,34].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%