Comparison of Simulated Multispectral Reflectance among Four Sensors in Land Cover Classification

Abstract

Multispectral images accessible free of charge have increased significantly from the acquisitions by the wide-field-of-view (WFV) sensors onboard Gaofen-1/-6 (GF-1/-6), the Operational Land Imager (OLI) onboard Landsat 8 (L8), and the Multi-Spectral Instrument (MSI) onboard Sentinel-2 (S2). These images with medium spatial resolutions are beneficial for land-cover mapping to monitor local to global surface dynamics. Comparative analyses of the four sensors in classification were made under different scenarios with five classifiers, mainly based on the simulated multispectral reflectance from well-processed hyperspectral data. With channel reflectance, differences in classification between the L8 OLI and the S2 MSI were generally dependent on the classifier considered, although the two sensors performed similarly. Meanwhile, without channels over the shortwave infrared region, the GF-1/-6 WFVs showed inferior performances. With channel reflectance, the support vector machine (SVM) with Gaussian kernel generally outperformed other classifiers. With the SVM, on average, the GF-1/-6 WFVs and the L8 OLI had great increases (more than 15%) in overall accuracy relative to using the maximum likelihood classifier (MLC), whereas the overall accuracy improvement was about 13% for the S2 MSI. Both SVM and random forest (RF) had greater overall accuracy, which partially solved the problems of imperfect channel settings. However, under the scenario with a small number of training samples, for the GF-1/-6 WFVs, the MLC showed approximate or even better performance compared to RF. Since several factors possibly influence a classifier’s performance, attention should be paid to a comparison and selection of methods. These findings were based on the simulated multispectral reflectance with focusing on spectral channel (i.e., number of channels, spectral range of the channel, and spectral response function), whereas spatial resolution and radiometric quantization were not considered. Furthermore, a limitation of this paper was largely associated with the limited spatial coverage. More case studies should be carried out with real images over areas with different geographical and environmental backgrounds. To improve the comparability in classification among different sensors, further investigations are definitely required.

High Spatiotemporal Remote Sensing Images Reveal Spatial Heterogeneity Details of Soil Organic Matter

“…The spectral response function is an essential parameter of remote-sensing satellite sensors [17,28]. Figure 2 shows the spectral response functions of the three sensors, Landsat-8 OLI, Sentinel-2 MSI, and Gaofen-6 PMS, for the five bands of red, green, blue, nearinfrared, and panchromatic.…”

“…The vast number of satellites and remote sensing data also brings new challenges, and different satellites have differences in sensor characteristics, data quality, observational specialties, and shortcomings, which need more assessment and validation [17][18][19]. Dong et al addressed the radiometric calibration problem of the wide field of view (WFV) imaging of Gaofen-1 and Gaofen-6.…”

A Spatial Distribution Extraction Method for Winter Wheat Based on Improved U-Net

“…Remote sensing technology has the characteristics of a wide field of view and multiple time scales. Remote sensing images can provide instantaneous static images over a large area, and compared to traditional survey methods, remote sensing technology has the advantages of low cost, obvious hierarchy, efficient information collection, and strong timeliness [9]. It can monitor ground information more rapidly and objectively, and it plays an important role in land cover identification and detection [10].…”