2017
DOI: 10.1080/01431161.2017.1348642
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A knowledge-based approach to mapping degraded meadows on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, China

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Results showed that overall accuracy was over 80%, with user's accuracy (complement of commission error) for the 'Significant decrease' and 'Potential decrease' classes being 75% and 74.8% while producer's accuracy (complement of omission error) being 70% and 50.3%. These accuracy measure are commensurate with previous studies on mapping land surface changes over small areas using moderate to high-spatial resolution satellite data (Dimobe et al 2015;Gao and Li 2017;Lu et al 2007;Vågen et al 2016;Žížala et al 2017). There are differences between our produced map (30-m vegetation cover changes) and the validation data (1km buffers with both soil and vegetation condition changes), and while we recognize that uncertainties may exist in our accuracy assessment, these field observations are the best on offer validation data available.…”
Section: Using Vegetation Cover Change Mapping As a Start For Land Condition And Degradation Assessmentsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…Results showed that overall accuracy was over 80%, with user's accuracy (complement of commission error) for the 'Significant decrease' and 'Potential decrease' classes being 75% and 74.8% while producer's accuracy (complement of omission error) being 70% and 50.3%. These accuracy measure are commensurate with previous studies on mapping land surface changes over small areas using moderate to high-spatial resolution satellite data (Dimobe et al 2015;Gao and Li 2017;Lu et al 2007;Vågen et al 2016;Žížala et al 2017). There are differences between our produced map (30-m vegetation cover changes) and the validation data (1km buffers with both soil and vegetation condition changes), and while we recognize that uncertainties may exist in our accuracy assessment, these field observations are the best on offer validation data available.…”
Section: Using Vegetation Cover Change Mapping As a Start For Land Condition And Degradation Assessmentsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…The quantity of vegetative cover on the ground is commonly measured using normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) that had a theoretical range of 0–255 after the NDVI image was saved in 8 bits. The exact NDVI ranges adopted are 108–122 for severe, 122–135 for moderate, and 135–140 for slight degradation (Gao & Li, ). The remotely sensed results were verified in a post‐classification trip in August 2016 to the area.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The recoded NDVI layers of degraded meadows were then vectorized and intersected with the on‐screen digitized channel layer from the color composite (Figure ) that had been buffered at a width of 60 m using ‘erase.’ This processing essentially removed all those mapped heitutan within a distance of 60 m from a channel from the output (Gao & Li, ). The same routine of processing was applied to all three images with the same parameters so that the results were highly consistent and comparable to one another.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations