Figure 1.
General geographic situation of the whole study area.
Figure 1.
General geographic situation of the whole study area.
Figure 2.
Technology route.
Figure 2.
Technology route.
Figure 3.
Marking process of proposed method: (a) Landsat TM image; (b) marked result by object-oriented method; (c) remarked area (the red pixels) using the proposed method; (d) final marked result.
Figure 3.
Marking process of proposed method: (a) Landsat TM image; (b) marked result by object-oriented method; (c) remarked area (the red pixels) using the proposed method; (d) final marked result.
Figure 4.
Four types of seed regions in the seed growth: a-d represents four typical positions of seed boundary.
Figure 4.
Four types of seed regions in the seed growth: a-d represents four typical positions of seed boundary.
Figure 5.
Line graphs of water indexes of different surface features: (a) MNDWI and NDWI of different surface features of Landsat TM; (b) MNDWI and NDWI of different surface features of Landsat ETM+; (c) MNDWI and NDWI of different surface features of Landsat OLI.
Figure 5.
Line graphs of water indexes of different surface features: (a) MNDWI and NDWI of different surface features of Landsat TM; (b) MNDWI and NDWI of different surface features of Landsat ETM+; (c) MNDWI and NDWI of different surface features of Landsat OLI.
Figure 6.
Water index image of Landsat TM image: (a) Landsat TM image; (b) NDWI image; (c) MNDWI image.
Figure 6.
Water index image of Landsat TM image: (a) Landsat TM image; (b) NDWI image; (c) MNDWI image.
Figure 7.
Merged image with different merging weights: (a,g,m) are from the original remote sensing images of the three experimental areas, respectively; (b,h,n) are MNDWI images corresponding to (a,g,m), respectively; (c,i,o) are gradient images corresponding to (a,g,m), respectively; (d,j,p) are merged images with the weight setting of 6:4 corresponding to (a,g,m), respectively; (e,k,q) are merged images with the weight setting of 4:6 corresponding to (a,g,m), respectively; (f,l,r) are merged images with the weight setting of 2:8 corresponding to (a,g,m), respectively.
Figure 7.
Merged image with different merging weights: (a,g,m) are from the original remote sensing images of the three experimental areas, respectively; (b,h,n) are MNDWI images corresponding to (a,g,m), respectively; (c,i,o) are gradient images corresponding to (a,g,m), respectively; (d,j,p) are merged images with the weight setting of 6:4 corresponding to (a,g,m), respectively; (e,k,q) are merged images with the weight setting of 4:6 corresponding to (a,g,m), respectively; (f,l,r) are merged images with the weight setting of 2:8 corresponding to (a,g,m), respectively.
Figure 8.
Scatter plots of gradient of decrease near the lake boundary with different weight settings: (a) result of the 14th row of Landsat TM image; (b) result of the 16th row of Landsat TM image; (c) result of the 18th row of Landsat ETM+ image; (d) result of the 19th row of Landsat ETM+ image; (e) result of the 19th row of Landsat OLI image; (f) result of the 27th row of Landsat OLI image.
Figure 8.
Scatter plots of gradient of decrease near the lake boundary with different weight settings: (a) result of the 14th row of Landsat TM image; (b) result of the 16th row of Landsat TM image; (c) result of the 18th row of Landsat ETM+ image; (d) result of the 19th row of Landsat ETM+ image; (e) result of the 19th row of Landsat OLI image; (f) result of the 27th row of Landsat OLI image.
Figure 9.
Range of values of pixels on the selected “line”: (a) the range on the 14th row of the image of Landsat TM; (b) the range on the 19th row of the image of Landsat ETM+; (c) the range on the 27th row of the image of Landsat OLI.
Figure 9.
Range of values of pixels on the selected “line”: (a) the range on the 14th row of the image of Landsat TM; (b) the range on the 19th row of the image of Landsat ETM+; (c) the range on the 27th row of the image of Landsat OLI.
Figure 10.
Results of each stage of extraction process: (a) result of the object-oriented method; (b) candidate lake area obtained by the object-oriented method; (c) the result after the correction of the lake boundary.
Figure 10.
Results of each stage of extraction process: (a) result of the object-oriented method; (b) candidate lake area obtained by the object-oriented method; (c) the result after the correction of the lake boundary.
Figure 11.
Extraction results with OOBR: (a–c) are the results of Landsat TM, ETM+ and OLI images, respectively, in study area 1; (d,e) are the results of Landsat TM and OLI images, respectively, in study area 2.
Figure 11.
Extraction results with OOBR: (a–c) are the results of Landsat TM, ETM+ and OLI images, respectively, in study area 1; (d,e) are the results of Landsat TM and OLI images, respectively, in study area 2.
Figure 12.
Extraction results with OOIA and OOBR: (a–c) are the results of Landsat TM, ETM+ and OLI images, respectively, in study area 1 by proposed method (OOBR); (d–f) are the results of Landsat TM, ETM+ and OLI images, respectively, in study area 1 by object-oriented method (OOIA); (g,h) are the results of Landsat TM and OLI images, respectively, in study area 2 by proposed method (OOSR); (i,j) are the results of Landsat TM and OLI images, respectively, in study area 2 by object-oriented method (OOIA).
Figure 12.
Extraction results with OOIA and OOBR: (a–c) are the results of Landsat TM, ETM+ and OLI images, respectively, in study area 1 by proposed method (OOBR); (d–f) are the results of Landsat TM, ETM+ and OLI images, respectively, in study area 1 by object-oriented method (OOIA); (g,h) are the results of Landsat TM and OLI images, respectively, in study area 2 by proposed method (OOSR); (i,j) are the results of Landsat TM and OLI images, respectively, in study area 2 by object-oriented method (OOIA).
Figure 13.
Results of the two methods with different segmentation scales image: (a–c) are the results using OOBR method with segmentation scale settings of 10, 12 and 15, respectively; (d–f) are the results using OOIA method with segmentation scale settings of 10, 12 and 15, respectively.
Figure 13.
Results of the two methods with different segmentation scales image: (a–c) are the results using OOBR method with segmentation scale settings of 10, 12 and 15, respectively; (d–f) are the results using OOIA method with segmentation scale settings of 10, 12 and 15, respectively.
Figure 14.
Feature rule sets: (a) one feature rule set in the comparison experiment; (b) another feature rule set in the comparison experiment.
Figure 14.
Feature rule sets: (a) one feature rule set in the comparison experiment; (b) another feature rule set in the comparison experiment.
Figure 15.
Results of the method of OOBR and OOW with different feature rule sets image: (
a,
e) are the original remote sensing images from the experimental area; (
b–
d) are the results with the feature rule set in
Figure 14a; (
f–
h) are the results with the feature rule set in
Figure 14b.
Figure 15.
Results of the method of OOBR and OOW with different feature rule sets image: (
a,
e) are the original remote sensing images from the experimental area; (
b–
d) are the results with the feature rule set in
Figure 14a; (
f–
h) are the results with the feature rule set in
Figure 14b.
Figure 16.
Results of the proposed method in study area 4: (a,d) are the results in the image of Landsat TM; (b,e) are the results in the image of Landsat ETM+; (c,f) are the results in the image of Landsat OLI.
Figure 16.
Results of the proposed method in study area 4: (a,d) are the results in the image of Landsat TM; (b,e) are the results in the image of Landsat ETM+; (c,f) are the results in the image of Landsat OLI.
Table 1.
The information of remote sensing images.
Table 1.
The information of remote sensing images.
Image | Path/Row | Date | Cloud Cover/% | Sensor |
---|
LE7_4 | 150/34 | 15 August 1999 | 3.00 | ETM+ |
LE7_1 | 150/35 | 16 September 1999 | 1.00 | ETM+ |
LT5_2 | 148/36 | 27 August 2000 | 2.00 | TM |
LE7_3 | 149/34 | 30 September 2001 | 1.00 | ETM+ |
LT5_1 | 150/35 | 2 October 2008 | 1.00 | TM |
LT5_3 | 149/34 | 27 August 2009 | 2.00 | TM |
LT5_4 | 150/34 | 24 August 2011 | 1.00 | TM |
LC8_1 | 150/35 | 19 August 2015 | 1.42 | OLI |
LC8_2 | 148/36 | 21 October 2020 | 0.71 | OLI |
LC8_4 | 150/34 | 4 September 2021 | 1.83 | OLI |
Table 2.
Coefficient of variation (CV) of water index.
Table 2.
Coefficient of variation (CV) of water index.
Image | Coefficient of Variation (CV) |
---|
NDWI | MNDWI |
---|
Landsat TM | 1.076 | 1.374 |
Landsat ETM+ | 1.029 | 1.099 |
Landsat OLI | 1.910 | 2.452 |
Table 3.
Accuracy of the results with OOBR.
Table 3.
Accuracy of the results with OOBR.
Image | UA/% | PA/% | OA1/% | CE/% | OE/% |
---|
LT5_1 | 99.00 | 99.49 | 98.50 | 1.00 | 0.51 |
LE7_1 | 98.78 | 99.48 | 98.27 | 1.22 | 0.52 |
LC8_1 | 99.68 | 98.47 | 98.16 | 0.32 | 1.53 |
LT5_2 | 98.78 | 99.04 | 97.84 | 1.22 | 0.96 |
LC8_2 | 97.95 | 98.23 | 96.25 | 2.05 | 1.77 |
Table 4.
Accuracy of the results with OOIA and OOBR.
Table 4.
Accuracy of the results with OOIA and OOBR.
Method | Image | UA/% | PA/% | OA1/% | CE/% | OE/% |
---|
OOBR | LT5_1 | 99.00 | 99.49 | 98.50 | 1.00 | 0.51 |
LE7_1 | 98.78 | 99.48 | 98.27 | 1.22 | 0.52 |
LC8_1 | 99.68 | 98.47 | 98.16 | 0.32 | 1.53 |
LT5_2 | 98.78 | 99.04 | 97.84 | 1.22 | 0.96 |
LC8_2 | 97.95 | 98.23 | 96.25 | 2.05 | 1.77 |
OOIA | LT5_1 | 99.08 | 93.48 | 92.68 | 0.92 | 6.52 |
LE7_1 | 99.25 | 90.08 | 89.47 | 0.75 | 9.92 |
LC8_1 | 98.79 | 89.81 | 88.84 | 1.21 | 10.19 |
LT5_2 | 98.71 | 93.42 | 92.29 | 1.29 | 6.58 |
LC8_2 | 99.31 | 87.31 | 86.78 | 0.69 | 12.69 |
Table 5.
Accuracy of the two methods with different segmentation scales.
Table 5.
Accuracy of the two methods with different segmentation scales.
Method | Scale | UA/% | PA/% | OA1/% | CE/% | OE/% |
---|
OOBR | 10 | 99.12 | 95.65 | 94.84 | 0.88 | 4.35 |
12 | 92.33 | 98.94 | 91.42 | 7.67 | 1.06 |
15 | 92.44 | 97.24 | 90.07 | 7.56 | 2.76 |
OOIA | 10 | 98.92 | 92.36 | 91.44 | 1.08 | 7.64 |
12 | 98.80 | 92.10 | 91.08 | 1.20 | 7.90 |
15 | 97.03 | 91.88 | 89.37 | 2.97 | 8.12 |
Table 6.
Accuracy of the results in study area 4 using the proposed method.
Table 6.
Accuracy of the results in study area 4 using the proposed method.
Image | UA/% | PA/% | OA1/% | CE/% | OE/% |
---|
Landsat TM | 97.52 | 99.46 | 97.01 | 2.48 | 0.54 |
Landsat ETM+ | 99.73 | 99.33 | 99.06 | 0.27 | 0.67 |
Landsat OLI | 98.21 | 98.66 | 96.92 | 1.79 | 1.34 |