2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2006.11.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mapping East African tropical forests and woodlands — A comparison of classifiers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
9
0
2

Year Published

2009
2009
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
2
9
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Use of these ancillary spatial data and expert rules resulted in greater discrimination of four cover classes of L. camara which might otherwise have been difficult to classify using remotely sensed data alone. This study corroborates the work of other researchers, who also combined conventional classification methods (e.g., the maximum likelihood and spectral angle mapper) with an expert system to map vegetation cover and reported significant increases in mapping accuracy (Nangendo et al, 2007; Bars represent means and whiskers represent 95% confidence intervals for each cover class (n = 31, 30, 30, and 32 for the absent, low, medium, and high cover classes, respectively). Significant differences in spectral values between L. camara cover classes are denoted by different letters based on Scheffe's post hoc pairwise comparison tests (P < 0.05).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Use of these ancillary spatial data and expert rules resulted in greater discrimination of four cover classes of L. camara which might otherwise have been difficult to classify using remotely sensed data alone. This study corroborates the work of other researchers, who also combined conventional classification methods (e.g., the maximum likelihood and spectral angle mapper) with an expert system to map vegetation cover and reported significant increases in mapping accuracy (Nangendo et al, 2007; Bars represent means and whiskers represent 95% confidence intervals for each cover class (n = 31, 30, 30, and 32 for the absent, low, medium, and high cover classes, respectively). Significant differences in spectral values between L. camara cover classes are denoted by different letters based on Scheffe's post hoc pairwise comparison tests (P < 0.05).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…This is valid for both the optical [19]- [25] and L-and C-band SAR data when several image acquisitions are available from the same location [59]- [63]. The land cover and forest cover classification accuracies range from 50% to 80% depending on the number of classes [64]. In a multi-class classification, the performance of SAR data has been poorer than with optical data [65].…”
Section: B Comparison With Other Studiesmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…When the spectral angle between the pixel and the reference object is less than the given threshold value, the pixel can be considered in the same class as the reference object. The SAM combined with different vegetation distribution rules can be adopted to improve the classification accuracy of six species of forest-woodland-savannah mosaic, and compared with the maximum likelihood classification (MLC); the classification accuracy was increased by 10% in comparison to 85.2% for MLC [52]. By removing spectrum noise or making differential spectrum, SAM can be adopted to eliminate the influence of the vegetation environmental background and the phenomenon caused by the same object with different spectrums to improve the vegetation identification precision.…”
Section: Land Use/land Cover Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%