Application of Landsat High Spatial Resolution Phenological Synthesized Data in Mountainous Land Cover Classification
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Source
2.2.1. Data Used for Land Cover Classification
- The spectral data were obtained from the “LANDSAT/LC08/C02/T1_L2” dataset on the US Geological Survey (USGS) website, following atmospheric correction, radiometric correction, and cloud removal. To better distinguish between various vegetation types, we selected images from two seasons, Summer Imagery dated 9 July 2023, and Autumn Imagery dated 31 October 2018; the spatial resolution is 30 m. We also used specific vegetation indices and terrain data to assist in land cover classification. The calculation methods for each index are shown in Table 1. The Terrain data include DEM, slope, and aspect, with the DEM sourced from the “USGS/SRTMGL1_003” dataset on the USGS website, also with a spatial resolution of 30 m.
- The phenology data validated in this study were sourced from the USGS’s ‘MODIS/006/MCD12Q2′ dataset, which provides annual data at a spatial resolution of 500 m. We calculated the average of the MCD12Q2 imagery data from 2000 to 2022 to serve as the comparative data for the multi-year synthesized phenology data.
- High-resolution remote sensing satellite images were used to establish a training sample library. We utilized high-resolution remote sensing images from the ZY-3 and GF-1 satellites, captured from July to November, combined with Google Earth imagery.
- In establishing the sample library, we referenced data from the eastern transect obtained during the 2017–2019 field surveys of the Qinling-Daba Mountains. This field plot includes 69 plant community sample species. The data cover a total of 47 field plots in the Shennongjia Forestry District, providing information on species types, individual numbers, tree height, diameter at breast height (DBH), crown width, canopy cover, plot coordinates, and elevation. Figure 1c shows the location of the field plots in the Shennongjia Forestry District.
2.2.2. Land Cover Classification System and Establishment of Sample Library
2.3. Methology
Extraction of High Spatial Resolution Multi-Year Synthesized Phenological Indicators
3. Results
3.1. Extraction Results of Multi-Year Synthesized Phenology
3.2. Improvement in Classification Accuracy of Summer Imagery Due to Phenological Data
3.3. Improvement in Classification Accuracy of Autumn Imagery Due to Phenology Data
3.4. Improvement in Classification Accuracy of Summer and Autumn Imagery Due to Phenology Data
3.5. Land Cover Classification Results for Mountain Shadow Areas
4. Discussion
4.1. Feasibility of Applying Multi-Year Phenological Synthesized Data to Land Cover Classification
4.2. The Effectiveness of Multi-Year Synthesized Phenology Data in Identifying Vegetation in Mountain Shadow Areas
4.3. Deficiencies and Improvements in Research
- Data Resolution and Temporal Gaps: This study utilized multi-year Landsat imagery to construct daily EVI time series and extract phenological parameters. Although Landsat provides extensive spatial and historical coverage, its 30 m spatial resolution may be insufficient for capturing fine-scale land cover patterns, especially in heterogeneous mountainous areas. Moreover, the 16-day revisit cycle and frequent cloud cover result in limited valid observations for any given pixel. In practice, most days in a year contain only 1–3 usable images per pixel, and some may have none. These limitations constrain the accuracy and temporal fidelity of phenology reconstruction, especially when using data from sensors with slightly different spectral characteristics (Landsat 5, 7, and 8) without cross-sensor calibration.
- Bias from Multi-year Averaging and Lack of Detrending: The multi-year averaging strategy was adopted to enhance temporal stability by suppressing short-term fluctuations caused by clouds, shadows, or sensor noise. However, this approach inherently suppresses long-term phenological trends, which are increasingly prominent under global climate change. For example, if vegetation green-up has advanced steadily from 2000 to 2022, averaging across the full period will underestimate this shift, potentially generating representative phenology curves that lag behind current ecological conditions. Moreover, a simple mean can conflate typical seasonal signals with anomalies induced by drought, extreme weather, or human disturbance, thus reducing the biological interpretability and classification reliability of the extracted parameters. Given these issues, the absence of detrending methods (e.g., STL decomposition or segmented regression) may introduce biases that merit further investigation. Future work could address this limitation by applying phenology reconstruction methods that integrate climate trend separation, or by stratifying the multi-year composite into shorter epochs (e.g., 2000–2010, 2011–2022) for temporal comparison. Additionally, incorporating higher-frequency data sources such as Sentinel-2, with its 5-day revisit cycle, could improve intra-annual sampling density and reduce reliance on averaging.
- Challenges in Shadowed Area Classification: Accurately extracting and classifying land cover within mountain shadow regions remains a significant technical challenge. Shaded areas exhibit altered reflectance characteristics and often contain mixed spectral signals due to low illumination, resulting in reduced model performance. In this study, a Shady Vegetation Index (SVI)-based method was applied to isolate shadow areas from autumn imagery, followed by independent sample library construction and classification. While this strategy enables a focused assessment of shadowed zones, the representativeness and scale of the shadow sample library could still influence classification accuracy. Improvements could include incorporating topographic data (e.g., slope, aspect), solar angle models, or shadow-invariant indices to enhance classification performance in such complex terrain.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Buchner, J.; Yin, H.; Frantz, D.; Kuemmerle, T.; Askerov, E.; Bakuradze, T.; Bleyhl, B.; Elizbarashvili, N.; Komarova, A.; Lewinska, K.E.; et al. Land-cover change in the Caucasus Mountains since 1987 based on the topographic correction of multi-temporal Landsat composites. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 248, 111967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miehe, G.; Schleuss, P.M.; Seeber, E.; Babel, W.; Biermann, T.; Braendle, M.; Chen, F.H.; Coners, H.; Foken, T.; Gerken, T.; et al. The Kobresia pygmaea ecosystem of the Tibetan highlands-Origin, functioning and degradation of the world’s largest pastoral alpine ecosystem Kobresia pastures of Tibet. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 648, 754–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, M.Y.; Peng, P.H.; Zhang, S.Q.; Wang, X.M.; Wang, X.; Wang, J.; Pellikka, P. Mountain Forest Type Classification Based on One-Dimensional Convolutional Neural Network. Forests 2023, 14, 1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canedoli, C.; Ferrè, C.; Abu El Khair, D.; Comolli, R.; Liga, C.; Mazzucchelli, F.; Proietto, A.; Rota, N.; Colombo, G.; Bassano, B.; et al. Evaluation of ecosystem services in a protected mountain area: Soil organic carbon stock and biodiversity in alpine forests and grasslands. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 44, 101135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balkrishna, A.; Sharma, I.P.; Kushwaha, A.K.; Kumar, S.; Arya, V. A study on multi-ranged medicinal plants and soil temperature in various sites of Garhwal Himalaya, Uttarakhand. Discov. Environ. 2023, 1, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, P.F.; Ou, G.L.; Li, R.A.; Wang, L.G.; Xu, W.H.; Dai, Q.L.; Huang, X. Regionalized classification of stand tree species in mountainous forests by fusing advanced classifiers and ecological niche model. Gisci. Remote Sens. 2023, 60, 1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, B.G.; Yao, Y.H. Mountain Vegetation Classification Method Based on Multi-Channel Semantic Segmentation Model. Remote Sens 2024, 16, 256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, R.; Tang, X.M.; You, S.C.; Duan, K.F.; Xiang, H.Y.; Luo, H.X. A Novel Feature-Level Fusion Framework Using Optical and SAR Remote Sensing Images for Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) Classification in Cloudy Mountainous Area. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, G.M.; Liu, B.; Zhang, X.R.; Jin, X.D.; Gu, Y.F. Multitemporal Intrinsic Image Decomposition with Temporal-Spatial Energy Constraints for Remote Sensing Image Analysis. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2022, 60, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hurskainen, P.; Adhikari, H.; Siljander, M.; Pellikka, P.K.E.; Hemp, A. Auxiliary datasets improve accuracy of object-based land use/land cover classification in heterogeneous savanna landscapes. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 233, 111354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeferino, L.B.; Souza, L.F.T.D.; Amaral, C.H.D.; Inácio, F.F.E.; Oliveira, T.S.D. Does environmental data increase the accuracy of land use and land cover classification? Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2020, 91, 102128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adepoju, K.A.; Adelabu, S.A. Improving accuracy evaluation of Landsat-8 OLI using image composite and multisource data with Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. Lett. 2020, 11, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Q.; Guan, H.; Hu, T.; Jin, S.; Su, Y.; Wang, X.; Wei, D.; Ma, Q.; Sun, Q. Remote sensing-based mapping for the new generation of Vegetation Map of China (1:500,000). Sci. China Life Sci. 2021, 51, 229–241. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ai, J.Q.; Gao, W.; Gao, Z.Q.; Shi, R.H.; Zhang, C. Phenology-based mapping in coastal wetland of the Yangtze Estuary using time series of GaoFen satellite no. 1 wide field of view imagery. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 2017, 11, 026020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, J.; Sun, Y.H.; Cao, P.R.; Wang, H.Y. A phenology-based vegetation index classification (PVC) algorithm for coastal salt marshes using Landsat 8 images. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2022, 110, 102776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, X.; Tong, X.H.; Pan, H.Y. Integrating Multiresolution and Multitemporal Sentinel-2 Imagery for Land-Cover Mapping in the Xiongan New Area, China. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2021, 59, 1029–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, F.; Cai, Z.Z.; Jin, H.X.; Hufkens, K.; Scheifinger, H.; Tagesson, T.; Smets, B.; Van Hoolst, R.; Bonte, K.; Ivits, E.; et al. Calibrating vegetation phenology from Sentinel-2 using eddy covariance, PhenoCam, and PEP725 networks across Europe. Remote Sens. Environ. 2021, 260, 112456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, M.G.; Wang, S.P.; Jiang, N.; Sun, J.P.; Cao, R.Y.; Ling, X.F.; Fang, B.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, L.H.; Xu, X.Y.; et al. Plant phenology changes and drivers on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau (Jul, 10.1038/s43017-022-00317-5, 2022). Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2022, 3, 717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, L.; Xia, H.M.; Yang, J.; Niu, W.H.; Wang, R.M.; Song, H.Q.; Guo, Y.; Qin, Y.C. Mapping cropping intensity in Huaihe basin using phenology algorithm, all Sentinel-2 and Landsat images in Google Earth Engine. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2021, 102, 102376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saquella, S.; Laneve, G.; Ferrari, A. A Cross-Correlation Phenology-Based Crop Fields Classification Using Sentinel-2 Time-Series. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGRASS 2022), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 17–22 July 2022; pp. 5660–5663. [Google Scholar]
- Weisberg, P.J.; Dilts, T.E.; Greenberg, J.A.; Johnson, K.N.; Pai, H.; Sladek, C.; Kratt, C.; Tyler, S.W.; Ready, A. Phenology-based classification of invasive annual grasses to the species level. Remote Sens. Environ. 2021, 263, 112568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, N.; Zhang, Y.; Tian, S.; Yan, Y.M.; Miao, X.Y. Shadow Detection and Removal for Occluded Object Information Recovery in Urban High-Resolution Panchromatic Satellite Images. IEEE J.-STARS 2016, 9, 2568–2582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, M.; Dou, G.M.; Zhang, X.T.; Lin, H.J.; Huo, W.Q. A Subpixel Mapping Method for Urban Land Use by Reducing Shadow Effects. IEEE J.-STARS 2023, 16, 2163–2177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Xu, L.; Chen, J.J.; Jiang, Y.Z.; Sun, S.Y.; Yu, S.H.; Tan, Z.Y.; Li, X.H. Monitoring vegetation dynamics (2010-2020) in Shengnongjia Forestry District with cloud-removed MODIS NDVI series by a spatio-temporal reconstruction method. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. 2023, 26, 527–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B.; Li, L. Evaluation of ecosystem service value and vulnerability analysis of China national nature reserves: A case study of Shennongjia Forest Region. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 149, 110188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.J.; Zeng, Y.; Zheng, Z.J.; Dong, W.X.; Zhao, D.; Wu, B.F.; Zhao, Q.J. Forest species diversity mapping using airborne LiDAR and hyperspectral data in a subtropical forest in China. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 213, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, S.; Zhu, Z.; Olofsson, P.; Woodcock, C.E.; Jin, S.M. Evaluation of Landsat image compositing algorithms. Remote Sens. Environ. 2023, 285, 113375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qu, L.A.; Chen, Z.J.; Li, M.C.; Zhi, J.J.; Wang, H.M. Accuracy Improvements to Pixel-Based and Object-Based LULC Classification with Auxiliary Datasets from Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malik, R.; Rossi, S.; Sukumar, R. Variations in the timing of different phenological stages of cambial activity in (Royle) along an elevation gradient in the north-western Himalaya. Dendrochronologia 2020, 59, e125660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vrieling, A.; Skidmore, A.K.; Wang, T.J.; Meroni, M.; Ens, B.J.; Oosterbeek, K.; O’Connor, B.; Darvishzadeh, R.; Heurich, M.; Shepherd, A.; et al. Spatially detailed retrievals of spring phenology from single-season high-resolution image time series. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2017, 59, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Zou, Y.Y.; He, J.F.; Zhang, W.; Gao, L.L.; Zhuang, D.F. Response of Vegetation Phenology to the Interaction of Temperature and Precipitation Changes in Qilian Mountains. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wakulinska, M.; Marcinkowska-Ochtyra, A. Multi-Temporal Sentinel-2 Data in Classification of Mountain Vegetation. Remote Sens 2020, 12, 2696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.Y.; Jayavelu, S.; Liu, L.L.; Friedl, M.A.; Henebry, G.M.; Liu, Y.; Schaaf, C.B.; Richardson, A.D.; Gray, J. Evaluation of land surface phenology from VIIRS data using time series of PhenoCam imagery. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2018, 256, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, S.Y.; Dong, X.Z.; Ma, M.Z.; Zang, Z.H.; Xu, W.T.; Zhao, C.M.; Xie, Z.Q.; Shen, G.Z. Evaluating the effectiveness of Shennongjia National Nature Reserve based on the dynamics of forest carbon pools. Biodiv. Sci. 2018, 26, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, W.; Kobayashi, H.; Wang, C.; Shen, M.G.; Chen, J.; Matsushit, B.; Tang, Y.H.; Kim, Y.; Bret-Harte, M.S.; Zona, D.; et al. A semi-analytical snow-free vegetation index for improving estimation of plant phenology in tundra and grassland ecosystems. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 228, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Y.H.; Ren, H.Z.; Zhang, T.Y.; Zhang, C.Y.; Qin, Q.M. Crop Leaf Area Index Retrieval Based on Inverted Difference Vegetation Index and NDVI. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2018, 15, 1662–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, H.X.; Jönsson, A.M.; Bolmgren, K.; Langvall, O.; Eklundh, L. Disentangling remotely-sensed plant phenology and snow seasonality at northern Europe using MODIS and the plant phenology index. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 198, 203–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dang, C.Y.; Shao, Z.F.; Huang, X.; Zhuang, Q.W.; Cheng, G.; Qian, J.X. Climate warming-induced phenology changes dominate vegetation productivity in Northern Hemisphere ecosystems. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 151, 110326. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sivabalan, K.R.; Ramaraj, E. Phenology based classification index method for land cover mapping from hyperspectral imagery. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2021, 80, 14321–14342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, J.X.; Chen, C.; Zhou, S.T.; Hu, W.M.; Zhang, W. Land use classification in mine-agriculture compound area based on multi-feature random forest: A case study of Peixian. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024, 7, 1335292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghosh, A.; Fassnacht, F.E.; Joshi, P.K.; Koch, B. A framework for mapping tree species combining hyperspectral and LiDAR data: Role of selected classifiers and sensor across three spatial scales. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2014, 26, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burai, P.; Deák, B.; Valkó, O.; Tomor, T. Classification of Herbaceous Vegetation Using Airborne Hyperspectral Imagery. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 2046–2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kupková, L.; Cervená, L.; Suchá, R.; Jakesová, L.; Zagajewski, B.; Brezina, S.; Albrechtová, J. Classification of Tundra Vegetation in the Krkonose Mts. National Park Using APEX, AISA Dual and Sentinel-2A Data. Eur. J. Remote Sens. 2017, 50, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, R.; Yin, G.F.; Zhao, W.; Yan, K.; Wu, S.B.; Hao, D.L.; Liu, G.X. Topographic Correction of Optical Remote Sensing Images in Mountainous Areas. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Mag. 2023, 11, 125–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, G.F.; Li, A.N.; Wu, S.B.; Fan, W.L.; Zeng, Y.L.; Yan, K.; Xu, B.D.; Li, J.; Liu, Q.H. PLC: A simple and semi-physical topographic correction method for vegetation canopies based on path length correction. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 215, 184–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.F.; Zhu, W.W.; Wei, P.P.; Fang, P.; Zhang, X.W.; Yan, N.N.; Liu, W.J.; Zhao, H.; Wu, Q.R. Classification of Zambian grasslands using random forest feature importance selection during the optimal phenological period. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 135, 108529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tolt, G.; Shimoni, M.; Ahlberg, J. A Shadow Detection Method for Remote Sensing Images Using Vhr Hyperspectral and Lidar Data. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGRASS), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 24–29 July 2011; pp. 4423–4426. [Google Scholar]
- Ye, N.; Morgenroth, J.; Xu, C.; Cai, Z. Improving neural network classification of indigenous forest in New Zealand with phenological features. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 314, 115134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Y.; Vrieling, A.; Fava, F.; Meroni, M.; Marshall, M.; Gachoki, S. Phenology of short vegetation cycles in a Kenyan rangeland from PlanetScope and Sentinel-2. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 248, 112004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, H.L.; Zhu, L.; Chen, Y.; Yue, Z.D.; Zhu, Y.S. Improving grassland classification accuracy using optimal spectral-phenological-topographic features in combination with machine learning algorithm. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 158, 111392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, C.; Li, J.L.; Liu, Y.X.; Liu, Y.C.; Liu, R.Q. Plant species classification in salt marshes using phenological parameters derived from Sentinel-2 pixel-differential time-series. Remote Sens. Environ. 2021, 256, 112320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.J.; Yan, L.; Yuan, Q.Q.; Ma, Z.L. An Automatic Shadow Detection Method for VHR Remote Sensing Orthoimagery. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Hégarat-Mascle, S.; André, C. Use of Markov Random Fields for automatic cloud/shadow detection on high resolution optical images. ISPRS J. Photogramm. 2009, 64, 351–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Data Type | Name | Band Content/Formula |
---|---|---|
Vegetation Index Data (vegetation index) | NDMVI | |
EWI | ||
NDB BI | ||
Shady Vegetation Index (SVI) | SVI |
Abbreviation | Name | Definition |
---|---|---|
SOG | time for the start of the season | time for which the left edge has increased to a user defined level, measured from the left minimum level. |
LOG | length of the season | time from the start to the end of the season. |
EOG | time for the end of the season | time for which the right edge has decreased to a user defined level measured from the right minimum level. |
Amp | seasonal amplitude | difference between the maximum value and the base level |
Baseval | base level | given as the average of the left and right minimum values. |
Peakt | time for the mid of the season | computed as the mean value of the times for which, respectively, the left edge has increased to the 80% level and the right edge has decreased to the 80% level. |
Peakv | largest data value for the fitted function during the season | may occur at a different time compared with Peakt. |
Linteg | large seasonal integral | integral of the function describing the season from the season start to the season end. |
Sinteg | small seasonal integral | integral of the difference between the function describing the season and the base level from season start to season end. |
Startv | value for the start of the season | value of the function at the start of the season. |
Endv | value for the end of the season | value of the function at the end of the season. |
L | rate of increase at the beginning of the season | calculated as the ratio of the difference between the left 20% and 80% levels and the corresponding time difference. |
R | rate of decrease at the end of the season | calculated as the absolute value of the ratio of the difference between the right 20% and 80% levels and the corresponding time difference. |
Name | Band Composite | |
---|---|---|
Non-shadow Area | Su1 | Summer Imagery + Vegetation Index + Terrain Data |
Su2 | Summer Imagery + Vegetation Index + Phenology Data | |
Su3 | Summer Imagery + Vegetation Index + Terrain Data + Phenology Data | |
Au1 | Autumn Imagery + Vegetation Index + Terrain Data | |
Au2 | Autumn Imagery + Vegetation Index + Phenology Data | |
Au3 | Autumn Imagery + Vegetation Index + Terrain Data + Phenology Data | |
SA1 | Summer Imagery + Autumn Imagery + Vegetation Index | |
SA2 | Summer Imagery + Autumn Imagery + Vegetation Index + Terrain Data | |
SA3 | Summer Imagery + Autumn Imagery + Vegetation Index + Phenology Data | |
SA4 | Summer Imagery + Autumn Imagery + Vegetation Index + Terrain Data + Phenology Data | |
Shadow Area | M1 | Autumn Imagery + Vegetation Index |
M2 | Autumn Imagery + Vegetation Index + Terrain Data | |
M3 | Autumn Imagery + Vegetation Index + Phenology Data | |
M4 | Autumn Imagery + Vegetation Index + Terrain Data + Phenology Data |
Accuracy Assessment | Different Data Combinations of Summer Imagery | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Class Name | Su1 | Su2 | Su3 | |||
PA | UA | PA | UA | PA | UA | |
Evergreen broadleaf forest | 75.41% | 76.37% | 85.71% | 91.68% | 87.52% | 91.23% |
Deciduous broadleaf forest | 74.90% | 69.87% | 87.68% | 77.81% | 86.49% | 79.61% |
Evergreen coniferous forest | 94.66% | 90.97% | 93.28% | 97.13% | 93.52% | 96.98% |
Coniferous and broadleaved mixed forest | 54.28% | 62.54% | 71.39% | 79.46% | 73.48% | 80.40% |
Evergreen broadleaf shrubland | 90.28% | 94.10% | 86.21% | 96.27% | 90.72% | 97.66% |
Deciduous broadleaf shrubland | 80.12% | 68.84% | 84.41% | 80.04% | 89.08% | 82.64% |
Grassland | 82.13% | 86.74% | 90.00% | 81.50% | 89.57% | 86.98% |
Meadow | 87.65% | 76.38% | 88.86% | 89.67% | 92.47% | 88.47% |
Water bodies | 90.58% | 96.42% | 89.01% | 86.68% | 91.03% | 96.44% |
Farmland | 82.88% | 83.58% | 88.62% | 85.33% | 88.31% | 86.06% |
Artificial land | 78.68% | 77.80% | 82.23% | 82.76% | 84.41% | 78.31% |
Kappa | 74.19% | 82.76% | 84.12% | |||
OA | 77.29% | 84.85% | 86.04% |
Accuracy Assessment | Different Data Combinations of Autumn Imagery | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Class Name | Au1 | Au2 | Au3 | |||
PA | UA | PA | UA | PA | UA | |
Evergreen broadleaf forest | 96.11% | 94.24% | 95.30% | 93.94% | 95.30% | 93.86% |
Deciduous broadleaf forest | 81.52% | 93.75% | 84.63% | 89.49% | 85.40% | 90.26% |
Evergreen coniferous forest | 95.30% | 95.77% | 94.57% | 97.82% | 94.66% | 97.91% |
Coniferous and broadleaved mixed forest | 88.61% | 85.11% | 88.40% | 87.60% | 88.72% | 88.01% |
Evergreen broadleaf shrubland | 95.79% | 94.83% | 94.48% | 95.31% | 96.08% | 95.80% |
Deciduous broadleaf shrubland | 90.64% | 66.81% | 89.47% | 76.63% | 91.81% | 77.72% |
Grassland | 84.68% | 92.77% | 87.02% | 96.01% | 87.45% | 94.92% |
Meadow | 90.36% | 84.27% | 93.07% | 85.12% | 93.98% | 91.23% |
Water bodies | 89.24% | 91.49% | 89.01% | 85.93% | 89.46% | 92.79% |
Farmland | 90.71% | 89.96% | 93.01% | 89.46% | 93.95% | 90.54% |
Artificial land | 82.23% | 86.86% | 83.36% | 87.61% | 84.98% | 84.57% |
Kappa | 87.74% | 88.52% | 89.31% | |||
OA | 89.19% | 89.89% | 90.59% |
Accuracy Assessment | Different Data Combinations of Summer–Autumn Imagery | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Class Name | SA1 | SA2 | SA3 | SA4 | ||||
PA | UA | PA | UA | PA | UA | PA | UA | |
Evergreen broadleaf forest | 95.21% | 94.78% | 95.75% | 95.66% | 95.12% | 95.20% | 95.84% | 95.32% |
Deciduous broadleaf forest | 86.65% | 90.05% | 86.75% | 92.75% | 88.56% | 89.91% | 88.20% | 90.64% |
Evergreen coniferous forest | 95.22% | 95.53% | 95.63% | 95.63% | 95.47% | 97.44% | 95.55% | 97.76% |
Coniferous and broadleaved mixed forest | 89.36% | 85.21% | 89.36% | 85.56% | 88.56% | 87.76% | 89.09% | 87.92% |
Evergreen broadleaf shrubland | 95.07% | 96.89% | 95.65% | 96.63% | 95.94% | 97.21% | 96.08% | 97.35% |
Deciduous broadleaf shrubland | 80.90% | 82.02% | 89.28% | 81.64% | 89.67% | 87.45% | 92.98% | 88.17% |
Grassland | 89.36% | 92.92% | 90.00% | 94.21% | 90.85% | 94.26% | 90.00% | 95.70% |
Meadow | 90.96% | 92.07% | 92.17% | 94.44% | 92.17% | 96.23% | 93.67% | 97.19% |
Water bodies | 89.91% | 95.48% | 91.70% | 96.46% | 91.03% | 92.91% | 92.83% | 95.83% |
Farmland | 90.29% | 86.41% | 90.40% | 88.19% | 93.01% | 90.27% | 93.63% | 90.33% |
Artificial land | 79.48% | 84.25% | 82.88% | 84.65% | 84.49% | 83.81% | 84.01% | 82.80% |
Kappa | 88.29% | 89.39% | 89.96% | 90.43% | ||||
OA | 89.71% | 90.67% | 91.17% | 91.58% |
Accuracy Assessment | Different Data Combinations of Autumn Imagery | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Class Name | M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | ||||
PA | UA | PA | UA | PA | UA | PA | UA | |
Evergreen broadleaf forest | 96.18% | 82.44% | 96.40% | 85.43% | 94.79% | 91.63% | 95.37% | 95.37% |
Deciduous broadleaf forest | 88.25% | 92.35% | 89.54% | 91.11% | 90.69% | 93.50% | 91.98% | 94.27% |
Evergreen coniferous forest | 73.65% | 95.82% | 82.26% | 98.31% | 89.20% | 96.66% | 89.59% | 97.35% |
Coniferous and broadleaved mixed forest | 78.19% | 79.67% | 81.44% | 84.99% | 89.21% | 85.83% | 91.42% | 87.07% |
Kappa | 80.24% | 84.30% | 88.38% | 89.83% | ||||
OA | 85.76% | 88.65% | 91.54% | 92.59% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hu, Z.; Xiao, F.; Du, Y.; Wang, Z.; Luo, J.; Feng, Q.; Chen, M. Application of Landsat High Spatial Resolution Phenological Synthesized Data in Mountainous Land Cover Classification. Remote Sens. 2025, 17, 2603. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17152603
Hu Z, Xiao F, Du Y, Wang Z, Luo J, Feng Q, Chen M. Application of Landsat High Spatial Resolution Phenological Synthesized Data in Mountainous Land Cover Classification. Remote Sensing. 2025; 17(15):2603. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17152603
Chicago/Turabian StyleHu, Zhengzheng, Fei Xiao, Yun Du, Zhou Wang, Jiahuan Luo, Qi Feng, and Miaomiao Chen. 2025. "Application of Landsat High Spatial Resolution Phenological Synthesized Data in Mountainous Land Cover Classification" Remote Sensing 17, no. 15: 2603. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17152603
APA StyleHu, Z., Xiao, F., Du, Y., Wang, Z., Luo, J., Feng, Q., & Chen, M. (2025). Application of Landsat High Spatial Resolution Phenological Synthesized Data in Mountainous Land Cover Classification. Remote Sensing, 17(15), 2603. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17152603