2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2015.10.034
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conterminous United States crop field size quantification from multi-temporal Landsat data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

3
114
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 167 publications
(117 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
3
114
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on analyses presented by Yan and Roy [19], the average field size in the CA Central Valley is 0.234 km 2 , or approximately 500 × 500 m (Yan, 2017, personal comm.). Satellite-based ET retrievals at 100-m resolution or finer enable mapping at these critical spatial scales, allowing sub-field sampling and exclusion of border pixels in most fields.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on analyses presented by Yan and Roy [19], the average field size in the CA Central Valley is 0.234 km 2 , or approximately 500 × 500 m (Yan, 2017, personal comm.). Satellite-based ET retrievals at 100-m resolution or finer enable mapping at these critical spatial scales, allowing sub-field sampling and exclusion of border pixels in most fields.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compositing procedures are applied independently on a per-pixel basis to the gridded WELD time series to reduce cloud and aerosol contamination, fill missing values due to the SLC failure (that removed about 22% of each Landsat ETM+ image [56]), and to reduce data volume. The WELD data have an established land cover mapping provenance and have been used, for example, to make land cover, land cover change, burned area, and field size maps at national scale [24,[57][58][59].…”
Section: Existing Land Cover Maps For 2008 and 2011mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The segmentation parameters appear to not separate the strips at the highest level of detail, e.g., if the strip cropping is very narrow (i.e., 1-3 pixels wide). Within-field variation can cause the algorithm to split one field or pivot circle if the heterogeneity is high [33]. This over splitting issue does not pose a problem for the overall approach as the spatially aggregated values are classified as Crop or No-Crop only.…”
Section: Image Segmentationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The over-splitting, however does not pose a problem to the classification as these polygons are attributed and classified separately. Under-splitting may occur, if the field sizes due to strip-cropping become small (e.g., a few pixels in width) or, e.g., if field boundaries are diffuse [33]. A more detailed segmentation could help to separate these strips further.…”
Section: Synthetic Image Generation and Segmentationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation