Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T17:22:07.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative evaluation of ALMAZ, ERS-1, JERS-1, and Landsat-TM for discriminating wet tundra habitats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Gennady I. Belchansky ,
Gregory K. Ovchinnikov  and
David C. Douglas
Gennady I. Belchansky
Affiliation:
Institute of Evolutionary Morphology and Animal Ecology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Space Monitoring & Ecoinformation Systems Sector, Leninsky prospect 33, Moscow, 117071, Russia
Gregory K. Ovchinnikov
Affiliation:
Institute of Evolutionary Morphology and Animal Ecology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Space Monitoring & Ecoinformation Systems Sector, Leninsky prospect 33, Moscow, 117071, Russia
David C. Douglas
Affiliation:
Alaska Science Center, National Biological Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Systematic image-classification methods were applied to ALMAZ, ERS-1, and JERS-1 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and Landsat-TM multispectral satellite images to evaluate the relative information content of the satellite data for discriminating wet tundra habitats in northern Alaska. Results suggest that SAR data can be used to concurrently detect a maximum of four or five landcover classes using the methods of this study. Combining two or more SAR images from different satellites improved the detection of some classes, particularly water bodies. Combining full-resolution SAR data with Landsat-TM did not improve the detection capabilities of Landsat-TM alone. Further research is needed to assess other image-classification and SAR data processing methods.

Type
Articles
Information
Polar Record , Volume 31 , Issue 177 , April 1995 , pp. 161 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aronoff, S.A. 1984. An approach to optimized labeling of image classes. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 50 (6): 719–727.Google Scholar
Barber, D.G., Shokr, M.E., Femandes, R.A., Soulis, E.D., Flett, D.G., and LeDrew, E.F.. 1993. A comparison of second-order classifiers for SAR sea-ice discrimination. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 59 (9): 1397–1408.Google Scholar
Belchansky, G.I., and Ovchinnikov, G.K.. 1993. Nekotorye voprosy povysheniya effektivnosti klassifikatsii rastitel'nosti boreal'nykh lesovs ispol'zovaniem dannykh KA ‘Okean’ [Some aspects of raising the efficiency of boreal forest vegetation classification with Okean satellite data]. Issledovanie Zemli iz Kosmosa 6: 40–48.Google Scholar
Curlander, J.C., and McDonough, R.N.. 1991. Synthetic aperture radar: systems and signal processing. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Durand, J.M., Gimonet, B.J., and Perbos, J.R.. 1987. SAR data filtering for classification. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 25 (5): 629–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepner, G.F., Logan, T., Ritter, N., and Bryant, N.. 1990. Artificial neural network classification using a minimal training set — comparison to conventional supervised classification. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 56 (4): 469–473.Google Scholar
Lillesand, T.M., and Kiefer, R.W.. 1979. Remote sensing and image interpretation. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Rosenfield, G.H., and Fitzpatrick-Lins, K.. 1986. A coefficient of agreement as a measure of thematic classification accuracy. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 52 (2): 223–227.Google Scholar
Walker, D.A., Everett, K.R., Webber, P.J., and Brown, J.. 1980. Geobotanical atlas of the Prudhoe Bay region, Alaska. Hanover, NH: US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL Report 80–14).Google Scholar
Walker, D.A., Binnian, E.F., Lederer, N.D., Nordstrand, E.A., Meehan, R.H., Walker, M.D., and Weber, P.J.. 1986. Cumulative landscape impacts in the Prudhoe Bay oil field 1949–1983. In: Meehan, H., and Webber, P.J. (editors). Tundra development review: toward a cumulative impact assessment method. Anchorage: US Fish and Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
Way, J.B., and 15 authors. 1990. The effect of changing environmental conditions on microwave signatures of forest ecosystems: preliminary results of the March '88 Alaskan Aircraft SAR Experiment. International Journal of Remote Sensing 11: 1119–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar