分类系统导致巴西半干旱卡廷加样区植被图的分歧

E. Bontempo, M. Demirel, C. Corsini, F. Martins, D. Valeriano
{"title":"分类系统导致巴西半干旱卡廷加样区植被图的分歧","authors":"E. Bontempo, M. Demirel, C. Corsini, F. Martins, D. Valeriano","doi":"10.1109/LAGIRS48042.2020.9165656","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The mapping of vegetation and Land Cover (LC) is important for research and for public policy planning but, in Brazil, although diverse maps exist there are few studies comparing them. The semiarid region of the Caatinga, in northeastern Brazil is an area long neglected by scientific research and its vegetation is diverse and relatively rich despite years of human occupation and very little preservation effort. In this study we make a comparison between the main maps made for the Caatinga from four different sources: IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), TCN (Third National Communication), ProBio (Project for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Biodiversity) and MapBiomas. We also test these maps against well-known Land Cover maps from ESA and NASA: ESA’s GlobCover and Climate Change Initiative (CCI) Land Cover, and NASA’s MODIS MCD12Q1. This was done on a sample area where many of the Caatinga’s vegetation physiognomies can be found, using well-established Difference metrics and the new SPAtial EFficiency (SPAEF) algorithm as they present complementary viewpoints to test the correspondence of mapped classes as well as that of their spatial patterns. Our results show considerable disagreement between the maps tested and their class semantics, with IBGE’s and ProBio’s being the most similar among all national maps and MapBiomas’ the most closely related to global LC maps. The nature of the observed disagreement between these maps shows they diverge not only in the application of their classification systems, but also in their mapped spatial pattern, signaling the need for a better classification system and a better map of vegetation and land cover for the region.","PeriodicalId":111863,"journal":{"name":"2020 IEEE Latin American GRSS & ISPRS Remote Sensing Conference (LAGIRS)","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Classification System Drives Disagreement Among Brazilian Vegetation Maps at a Sample Area of the Semiarid Caatinga\",\"authors\":\"E. Bontempo, M. Demirel, C. Corsini, F. Martins, D. Valeriano\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/LAGIRS48042.2020.9165656\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The mapping of vegetation and Land Cover (LC) is important for research and for public policy planning but, in Brazil, although diverse maps exist there are few studies comparing them. The semiarid region of the Caatinga, in northeastern Brazil is an area long neglected by scientific research and its vegetation is diverse and relatively rich despite years of human occupation and very little preservation effort. In this study we make a comparison between the main maps made for the Caatinga from four different sources: IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), TCN (Third National Communication), ProBio (Project for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Biodiversity) and MapBiomas. We also test these maps against well-known Land Cover maps from ESA and NASA: ESA’s GlobCover and Climate Change Initiative (CCI) Land Cover, and NASA’s MODIS MCD12Q1. This was done on a sample area where many of the Caatinga’s vegetation physiognomies can be found, using well-established Difference metrics and the new SPAtial EFficiency (SPAEF) algorithm as they present complementary viewpoints to test the correspondence of mapped classes as well as that of their spatial patterns. Our results show considerable disagreement between the maps tested and their class semantics, with IBGE’s and ProBio’s being the most similar among all national maps and MapBiomas’ the most closely related to global LC maps. The nature of the observed disagreement between these maps shows they diverge not only in the application of their classification systems, but also in their mapped spatial pattern, signaling the need for a better classification system and a better map of vegetation and land cover for the region.\",\"PeriodicalId\":111863,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2020 IEEE Latin American GRSS & ISPRS Remote Sensing Conference (LAGIRS)\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2020 IEEE Latin American GRSS & ISPRS Remote Sensing Conference (LAGIRS)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/LAGIRS48042.2020.9165656\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2020 IEEE Latin American GRSS & ISPRS Remote Sensing Conference (LAGIRS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/LAGIRS48042.2020.9165656","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

植被和土地覆盖(LC)的测绘对于研究和公共政策规划很重要,但是在巴西,尽管存在各种各样的地图,但很少有研究对它们进行比较。位于巴西东北部的卡廷加半干旱地区是一个长期被科学研究忽视的地区,尽管多年来人类的占领和很少的保护工作,但它的植被多样性和相对丰富。在这项研究中,我们比较了四个不同来源为Caatinga绘制的主要地图:IBGE(巴西地理和统计研究所)、TCN(第三国家通信)、ProBio(生物多样性保护和可持续利用项目)和MapBiomas。我们还将这些地图与ESA和NASA的著名土地覆盖地图进行了测试:ESA的全球覆盖和气候变化倡议(CCI)土地覆盖地图,以及NASA的MODIS MCD12Q1。这是在一个可以找到许多Caatinga植被地貌的样本区域完成的,使用完善的差异度量和新的空间效率(SPAEF)算法,因为它们提供了互补的观点来测试映射类及其空间模式的对应性。我们的结果显示,在被测试的地图及其类语义之间存在相当大的分歧,IBGE和ProBio的地图在所有国家地图中最相似,而MapBiomas的地图与全球LC地图最接近。这些地图之间所观察到的差异的性质表明,它们不仅在分类系统的应用上存在分歧,而且在绘制的空间格局上也存在分歧,这表明需要更好的分类系统以及该地区更好的植被和土地覆盖地图。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Classification System Drives Disagreement Among Brazilian Vegetation Maps at a Sample Area of the Semiarid Caatinga
The mapping of vegetation and Land Cover (LC) is important for research and for public policy planning but, in Brazil, although diverse maps exist there are few studies comparing them. The semiarid region of the Caatinga, in northeastern Brazil is an area long neglected by scientific research and its vegetation is diverse and relatively rich despite years of human occupation and very little preservation effort. In this study we make a comparison between the main maps made for the Caatinga from four different sources: IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), TCN (Third National Communication), ProBio (Project for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Biodiversity) and MapBiomas. We also test these maps against well-known Land Cover maps from ESA and NASA: ESA’s GlobCover and Climate Change Initiative (CCI) Land Cover, and NASA’s MODIS MCD12Q1. This was done on a sample area where many of the Caatinga’s vegetation physiognomies can be found, using well-established Difference metrics and the new SPAtial EFficiency (SPAEF) algorithm as they present complementary viewpoints to test the correspondence of mapped classes as well as that of their spatial patterns. Our results show considerable disagreement between the maps tested and their class semantics, with IBGE’s and ProBio’s being the most similar among all national maps and MapBiomas’ the most closely related to global LC maps. The nature of the observed disagreement between these maps shows they diverge not only in the application of their classification systems, but also in their mapped spatial pattern, signaling the need for a better classification system and a better map of vegetation and land cover for the region.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信